DR, you are absolutely right, both about the weaknesses of the just-the-facts-ma'am approach, and the need to engage people on other levels.

However, there is a big catch-22: If scientists attempt to propagandize, engage the issues on an emotional level, or otherwise deviate from the lab-coat ideal, they get charged with being alarmist, unobjective, bad scientists, hewing to their own special interests, etc, etc.  Of course, they get those accusations anyway, but if those accusations get alot stickier if they actually have merit.

I'm not sure what the answer is, mind you.  I'm mostly hoping to illustrate the pointy bit of the problem.  Whatever the answer is, it's subtle as hell.

However, I do have one thought, which was inspired by your example of a hypothetical joke to make at Chrichton's expense.  If a scientist can engage the audience emotionally on a level that is clearly distinct from the scientific issues at hand, then he can make that critical connection without imperilling his scientific credibility.  That's why I emphasized "the issues" in my second paragraph: the key might be to engage emotionally on the cultural level, while maintaining a mein of objectivity on the scientific level.  Of course, this is very hard to do: even being a basically entertaining public speaker is a difficult skill for INTJ science types.  The kind of subtlety I am describing would be the mark of a master speaker.  I certainly do not know how to do it myself.

The tobacco companies had a similar campaign of "debate" where they would square off experts on two sides. Once you make something a debate, that really isn't a debate, then you've won.

End of discussion.

Benny Big Eye

I added a "merely." Not that that will dissuade those who want to misconstrue ...

www.grist.org

I assiduously avoid getting into public debates with skeptics.  Fred Singer tried to invite himself to A&M for a seminar, and some people suggested a debate, but a number of us were able to convince the rest of the faculty that a debate was a terrible idea.

The problem is that a scientist, acting under the rules of science, will get creamed every time by an advocate, who acts under the lenient rules of advocacy.  Advocacy allows one to make arguments that a scientist would never make.  People like Singer, Lindzen, Crichton, etc. need to be debating other advocates from the NRDC, Sierra Club, etc., not scientists.

Regards.

I could not agree more with DR in this assessment of the rhetorical shortcomings of scientists.  Not only did he turn his back on a Ph.D. in philosophy, he also clearly has eschewed the anti-democratic Plato's prejudice against the Sophists.

And very well done!  The Platonic prejudice, shared (perhaps for different reasons) by scientists, is that if a presentation strays from "just the facts," then it is guilty of including, not just the irrational, but the false.  And naturally and reasonably, wise and well-meaning people do not want to utter falsehoods in public.  (When they are on the phone with their mother, of course, anything goes.)  But that is too narrow an ethical assessment of what public speech is about.

Rhetoric, including all the stagecraft involved in public speaking, is an art, like anything else.  As such, it has an essential potential (ah!, poetry!) for good; but as we all know, that potential can be abused and turned to evil.  Plato, having seen his hero Socrates get stung by the rhetorically misled demos, received the wound vicariously, and never recovered.  And so he never acknowledged the positive, protreptic function of rhetoric.  ("Protreptic" = that which turns us toward the good.)  He never had quite enough respect for us undecided and not entirely ignorant members of hoi polloi to think that our resolve to carry out some good activity may actually matter; he was forever hung up on how we are not in control of The Entire Truth.  As if!

DR's catalogue of emotional tools that public speakers should avail themselves of is a tour-de-force.  It deserves to be studied.  No doubt it can be added to.

I do not know what to say to GreenEngineer, who raises an important caution.  But I do like David Biello's suggestion, that the captain of our team in the debate should have been Jon Stewart.

Chickens are our cousins! So are other sensitive animals! Enough is enough! No more factory farms!

... has started a blog, written op-ed pieces, and willingly entered into public debates. You've done some of that too. Do you really think you can carry the rules of science out into the public sphere with you?

www.grist.org

www.grist.org

But I would find it hard to separate the impact of the fact that since the public no longer participates in debates on national issues, it has no real reason to be informed, from the fact that there are simply far more opportunities for mindless entertainment than there used to be.

A challenging public debate is far more attractive than thumb-twiddling boredom.  But only freaks like us would rather spent their time arguing than playing with the Xbox.

The neocon/Republican/anarchist/conservative/evangelical/radicals -- I don't know what the !@#$ to call them -- have studied and mastered the art of moving people to action. They manipulate emotions, instill fear, bribe, whatever it takes.

It is time for Progressives, especially conservationists and environmentalists, to follow the same rules. Though I hope we do not have to stop telling the truth. The following is an example... please do not stray off topic, but just consider it an example... Kerry could have destroyed GW in the last campaign by filling the airwaves with videos and sound clips of GW's stupidity... just running his statement about not caring where Bin Laden is over and over would have damaged him. But NO... Kerry wanted to remain polite. THAT doesn't work against a machine that does not restrain its own behavior.

I would like to add one suggestion I do not believe was mentioned above... ECONOMICS. Those who want to slow down or stop rapid climate change must communicate to the corporate world and the general public how expensive it will be to adapt. SCARE them with a bit of reality that they can definitely comprehend. For example, when it becomes difficult to insure property along the Gulf Coast and East Coast, won't a few more people become concerned? When banks stop financing certain projects, won't a few more people notice? When tax payers have to build sea walls, won't a few more people notice? When refugees stream across borders... When our military is used to stabilize affected areas... I wish I had better examples. Must be some more immediate concerns. Just an idea.

Forward!

Another well done for a well put summary of a sad state of affairs.  As the personification of Vista tells PC in the Mac ads, "You are coming to a sad realization . . . ."

Go back a little bit and you find the exact same template in the creationism struggle--creationists are keen to have "debates" -- as many as possible, in as many places as possible -- with real scientists, because they have mastered the arts of advocacy and use those to "win" the debates in the eyes of the intended audience (the uninformed and gullible).

I must say, as someone who frequently points people to the realclimate.org website, I'm surprised that they agreed to the thing.   If you want to do scholarly debate, there are the journals, which is where the rules are understood.

But if you're going to make public appearances with denialists & confusionists, you better send your advocacy A-Team, not your "I'm too consciencious and objective to use rhetorical skills" guys.  Send that team is like sending a Brownie troop to a knife fight.

Another we have to consider, too, is people would rather not feel that they have to deal with climate change. People want to believe the crisis denialists. So if you have six talking heads and the denialists are more interesting to listen to, laughing and all, poking fun  . . .  

I managed to slog through about 2/3 of the debate and oh. my. god. It was so boring. As has already been said, one can integrate facts with passion and emotion. One can try and bring the facts home in some way to the audience rather than talking about climate change as the process that will happen out there somewhere. Make it personal. Get people to pay attention. I mean really. If they can have Michael Creighton up there, and that's supposed to mean something, to have credibility with the public on this topic in any venue, then environmentalists can show some emotion about the facts.

And yes, this is a problem, and has been a problem as long as I've been involved with the environmental movement. Acting as though one cares about something is like wearing your heart on your sleeve, to be trite about it. It's risky. You can be ridiculed. Your facts could be discredited simply because of your passion. You risk not being taken seriously. The exception, of course, is at rallies and actions.

I went to Seattle in today's 70o heatwave and felt like a fish out of the water.  I rarely leave the forest and almost never go into huge cities like Seattle.  So many people so vulnerable.  It was scary.

A scientist can also be a Catholic.  Advocacy is not a character flaw.  Scientists, journalists, teachers, farmers, CEOs, ... can also be advocates.  If scientists do not show emotion when discussing discoveries that will likely destroy the Earth then ordinary people may doubt well the credibility of such messages.  James Hanson of NASA showed alarm and horror over what was learned about global warming.  It was a kick in the gut.

Grist may be a valuable vehicle for mixing values and sciences.  The Internet is an effective communications tool, perhaps the best debating and organizing platform for the largest number of people.

As Dave says, we must use all the tools of facts, values, and persuasion.  

I've just read thru all the comments to this post over on HuffPost.  Congrats.  You've provoked a bunch of to-the-point and very entertainting comments.  And about time, too.  The vitriol ping-pong between a few of the commenters was bluntly hilarious.  By the way, I view education as the highest form of entertainment.  It looks like a few are teaching themselves what you've suggested.  

One commenter suggested a debate between Gore & Crichton.  And that "Crichton would destroy him on this subject."  I ask what positive result would come from that?  

You can't save the whole world (why would you want to?), just a part of it.  So what is left for each of us is to decide which part we are in.  

I enjoy what you write and the way you write it.

at a remove

Great post, DR.

Schmidt is one of these old-fashioned modernists that still thinks that science can somehow be separated from moral context and, well, takes place in a vacuum or something.

Scientific methods (note: not 'the' scientific method) are all attempts to minimise personal/observer bias. They can never be rid of it. However, as a part-time scientist/part-time media person I get more and more aware of the need to talk morals while talking science, to clearly embed what I do in a plainly-communicated moral space, and not try to pretend that I'm someow outside value-free or that my work has no political implications.

Schmidt also seems to have completely misunderstood the central question of the debate. I mean, what is the 'scientific definition' of a crisis? How can you have a 'purely scientific' debate around that word? It is clearly a question that revolves around perceptions and morals.

Cheers

Whiskerfish

This thread has been especially rich, and everyone has had something very interesting to contribute.

Keith Furnish does not regularly add to Gristmill's pages, I think, and so I would like to point out something that he wrote, of particular value:
<<
I felt odd writing something as emotive as "Did You Have A Good Life", but I'm so glad I did it. Talk to your audience as though you want them to be persuaded; nothing can be gained from losing them at the first equation.
>>

"Did You Have A Good Life," first of all, is an excellent small collection of respondents' narratives, having some very fine and moving writing.  I too am glad, and grateful, that Keith assembled it and set it up.

His imperative, beginning "Talk to," points to a distinction that needs to be made, which lies at the heart of DR's issue in this post.  It has to do with teaching styles.  The unrepentant Gavin Schmidt is a classic example of the kind of teacher who speaks to the general public as he would to his class: Either you learn this stuff, or you don't; and if you don't, I shall not hesitate to flunk you.

What a Mensch.  Perhaps in science you can get away with such quantitativizing inhumanity.  In the humanities, by contrast, no, it is not usually done like that.

Now, the alternative is NOT to dumb-down the course, so that the grading bell-curve has the losers at the low left end getting a B-, with no more than a couple of C+ out-liers further on.

The true alternative is better expressed in Keith's words, "Talk to your audience as though you want them to be persuaded."  Sure, hold them to a high intellectual standard, demand that they be in control of some basic information.  But at the same time, make it clear that you respect their competence to make up their own minds; and then, make it clear too that you would be gratified by their agreeing with you on such-and-such a matter of great importance to you.

Chickens are our cousins! So are other sensitive animals! Enough is enough! No more factory farms!

Tom Philpott, the state of news journalism is currently much vexed.  Does it have a single function?  If not, is one function more essential than the others?

Do you know the Frontline series on PBS, "What's Happening to the News"?  Ted Koppel observes that editorial decisions are more and more based on what stories people want to hear, and less on what they ought to hear.

Providing information is not itself a bad thing.  And that may be an essential function of journalism in a republic such as ours.  But how do you make people sit down and listen?

And then, cynically, one may ask, Why should we trust the Koppelist news editors to decide what are the news stories we as Americans ought to hear?

Over against that, Nicholas Kristof is surely right to criticize ABC News for giving an inordinate amount of coverage to the bizarre false confession to the JonBenet Ramsey murder, and by contrast a disgracefully minimal coverage to the Darfur/Chad/CAR crisis.  "Maybe somebody in Darfur should claim that he murdered JonBenet," he facetiously suggested.  (And he was probably unfair to single out ABC News, regarding the neglect of Darfur.)

The problems that Christopher Lasch raised in 1989 are still with us, and if anything are more pronounced.  Has the problem of little participation in public discourse been solved by the subsequent rise of blogs?  Well, to some extent perhaps.  But we have to count with the fact that there are so many writers now, commenting on everything, that it is impossible really to read enough that is truly interesting, and to engage in anything like a productive conversation, save in relatively small and responsible communities such as we have here at Gristmill.  There is lots of interesting stuff at DailyKos and HuffPost, sure, but the number of readers and writers there is so vast that any individual writer could hardly reasonably believe that he/she is engaging in true democratic public discourse.

And not only is the bulk of writers a significant obstacle.  On top of that, you get ill-educated fools such as myself, blathering on and on on subjects they know nothing about, clogging the screen space ...  Which brings us back to the problem of information, and proper respect for it, as well as proper respect for the judgment of the non-specialist citizen.

Chickens are our cousins! So are other sensitive animals! Enough is enough! No more factory farms!

Hi Canis and The 'Mill

the issues around journalism are deep and complex, but a lot of the present trouble has to do with where media organisations - here print is NB - make their money.

In the past a higher percentage of a newspaper company's profits came from the cover price. Today, most money comes from advertising. So the focus has shifted from giving readers something useful and relevant, to giving readers something 'addictive' that they want to read and the advertisers a properly-primed audience.

Also, in the past media organisations tended to be used as tools of political influence - now their role as money-making businesses is more important, because they're no longer owned by rich individuals or families with axes to grind but by large corporations with stock prices to support. Stories are chosen to get an audience for advertisers, not an audience per se, which means you don't want to put them into a depressed headspace when the ads come up so you avoid big stories that really challenge people like Darfur etc. as much as you can.

Combine this with the growing concentration of media ownership, and you have a situation where diversity in views goes down, and media owners spend their lives picking on powerless individuals and keeping the focus away from their advertising clients (focus on cheap-to-cover prurient sex/murder/drugs stories because those folks mean nothing to your bottom line and don;t challenge the morals of your viewers, but don't piss off General Motors). As a result investigative journalism (which is expensive because it takes time) in big media organisations is dying, and it's being left to bloggers to find the interesting stuff.

The only problem with this is that few independent bloggers etc. can make a decent living off what they do - the Net is open to anyone, but it's hard to get paid there. So we get overwhelmed by the views of Trustafarians and crazies.

I'm of the opinion that freedom of speech on its own means little if all you get is they views of the upper classes and nutters - unless a society can find a way for ordinary people to make a decent living as journalists, sources of credible, useful information will get harder and harder to find. Investigative journalism is in serious trouble at the moment.

Does that help? If you really want to follow this up, there are studies and stats to back what I'm saying all over the place.

Cheers

Whiskerfish

Again to Tom: I agree with Christopher Lasch that public debate is an important and valuable thing.  But we are far from finding a satisfactory forum for it.  Traditionally, the op-ed pages of respectable newspapers have performed that function, at least part way.  But not unnaturally, seeing that we cannot at once talk back to those writers writing opinionated and controversial things, we find that institution a bit frustrating.

Has "opinion journalism" given us anything of lasting valuable?  I am not at all sure.  Personally and anecdotally, on the very rare occasions when I am driving in one of those vehicles that I believe are called "motorcars," and have the opportunity to turn on the radio, I always seek for the local NPR station, on which I never hear anything that I already radically disagree with.  By contrast, I cannot tolerate Rush Limbaugh for longer than 20 seconds.  Now, NPR is NOT opinion journalism, as Rush most certainly is.  But I can see how Rush's typically paranoid fans might consider the selection of news stories, and of guests to be interviewed, to reflect a left-of-center view of the world.  Whether or not anyone here is right, the upshot is that simply giving airtime (or print space) to opinionated or partisan spokespersons does nothing to facilitate real public debate.

Consider what CNN has done, perhaps following too closely the example of its rival Fox News: they have given free rein to the anti-immigrationist, nativist, barely-concealed racist Lou Dobbs, assisted by an entourage of like-minded henchmen/women.  And then, there is the much more entertaining and reasonable Jack Cafferty, whom I greatly prefer.  But on balance is he really any better?  Both Dobbs and Cafferty solicit e-mail messages from viewers, but everybody knows already what they think, so the messages are pretty much just clever variations on the agreed-upon common sentiment.

Hence, one of the most amusing little dances regularly danced on a TV news show is what goes on between Jack Cafferty and Wolf Blitzer.  It is obvious that they genuinely like each other, and Jack tries to cajole Wolf into publicly agreeing with his teasing take on whatever news story is up for discussion; but Wolf, in his bland, non-committal way, does his best to look perfectly neutral, however much he personally believes Jack is right.

Happy Saint Patrick's Day, by the way: March 17!  Patron of Ireland, and of NYC!  And high time that Lou Dobbs and the other anti-immigrationist Irish-Americans return to Ireland.

And Happy Saint Joseph's Day: March 19!  Especially honored by Italians and Italian-Americans!  And high time that Dobbs' hero Mayor Louis Barletta of Hazleton, PA, and Congressman Tancredo of CO, and that guy in South Philadelphia who will only sell you a cheesesteak if you can order it in English, and all the other anti-immigrationist Italian-Americans return to Italy.

Chickens are our cousins! So are other sensitive animals! Enough is enough! No more factory farms!

I have been experiencing a prolonged Saul on the Road to Damascus type of event, since starting to read AN ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL book. It is called Dream:re-imagining progressive politics in an age of fantasy by Stephen Duncombe. The New Press 2007.

David's comments fit like a glove with Duncombe's observations. I have read few books that have supplied me with so many "Ah hah!" moments. If I hit the lottery I would spend a healthy part of my fortune buying and sending this book to people in the environmental and other movements.

If Duncombe had been at the event, security would have had to drag him out of the building - screaming.

GET THIS BOOK! See you all on the road to Damascus.

Randy Cunningham

Randy Cunningham

Right you are, Whiskerfish, your assessment makes perfect sense.  An important and sad example of what you are talking about is discussed in the Frontline documentary which I mentioned: the take-over and subsequent dismembering of CBS News, the most venerable and well-respected TV news agency in this country, the home of Edward R. Murrow, Walter Cronkite and Eric Sevareid, at the hands of the businessman Laurence A. Tisch, in the late 1980s.

Then again, you may be embarrassed to have so frothing-mouthed a crazyist as myself agreeing with you ...  : )

Chickens are our cousins! So are other sensitive animals! Enough is enough! No more factory farms!

David-

When I go out into public (either personally or electronically), I have to decide which hat to wear, my "scientist" hat or my "advocate" hat.  

I generally try to wear my advocate hat as little as possible.  I feel that my real contribution to the debate is my scientific credentials.  There are, in fact, lots of advocates out there, but many fewer scientists. And of those scientists, few have any experience in policy.

As you suggest, I certainly could adopt more of an advocacy position, but I don't think I'd do as good a job at that as someone like you.  In fact, I'm pretty sure that Fred Singer would cream me in a debate, even if I attempted to play by the same rules he did.

And I think I can have more of an impact by trying to educate people, like members of the Texas Legislature, than I could have as a naked advocate.  Adopting a strong advocacy position would hamper my attempts at this.

I have identified my niche and I stick to it.  Other people will have to fill other niches.  

Thanks!

DR, your perspective is correct, and I should know !  Communication is very hard from scientist to layperson... if not impossible.

>> Those not swayed by facts are intellectually, possibly morally, deficient>>

Well, err yes this is true.  But it could be that the "facts" are only really "opinions", and therefore are not necessarily true.  People en mass are not dumb oxen, they can see logical connections and they can see their unfolding everyday experiences.  The people just need to be told the truth and not just the belief formed from poorly analysed data.

>> The facts have been firmly established, and placed clearly before The People. >>

No, the facts re GCC are quite controversial, and IMO, the established facts are misplaced.  

GCC Propaganda needs to tie in what the people are experiencing and give them sound reasons for the changes that are being seen to happen
and follow that with detailed projections to the future and then let then watch them unfold....

Good science is capable of predicting the future quite accurately.

In this way enough sensible people will create mass discussion and the momentum for action will grow rapidly..... because the future projections will be unfolding before their eyes.

Get the science correct and the people will understand and follow.

Feed them BS and "you can fools some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all the people all of the time".... the BS eventually comes unstuck and then people get sceptical and disbelieve.

>> whether something counts as a "crisis" is obviously an undefined mix of fact and value judgment. It's not a scientific question. >>

Usually this is the case... most of the time "a do nothing approach" resolves an issue one way or another. This is because most if not all issues  even a "crisis" really are insignificant in the scheme of things, so doing nothing or something does not really matter, unless you desperately what a specific result.

OK, doing, acting, really does imply being alive and able.... if this is universally not the case, if we are all dead, if LIFE here has become extinct, then a call to act to prevent extinction or do nothing is rather important.  It is much more than a "crisis".  

But again, really in the scheme of things it makes no difference to LIFE, it only makes a difference to human beings.

This is the KEY, extinction or existence.  Global Climate Change as described by very poor science, only projects adverse changes.... LOL.... not extinction.

Make that pseudoscience real science and it will project extinction, and you will see a massive change of attitude, because all of us want better for OUR children,,,, LOL, forget the others. (as if)

I am sorry to say, the whole world's population is metal poisoned, and needs putting in hospital, but even mad people usually want a future for THEIR children.

Discussion is good via the Internet. Face to face encounters with mad people is dangerous, they show me how mad they are quite quickly.

Discussion is good because all relevant facets of the enquiry come to the fore, and arguments for or against can be skillfully honed by the feedback. And the opponent is on the other side of the puter screen !!!!!!! (ultimately important) LOL

Go right back to the source, the Hemlocke drinker himself.

Deal with sophistry, like the Crichton corporatarian set use,with his methods.  Break it down to simple enough language so the scientifically illiterate can understand the tricks the sophists are using.

Informal fallacies are not necessary.  Turn their use of ad hominem and misdirection back around against them.

It can work.  For every informal fallacy there is a counter argument based on the nature of that particular fallacy.

Example:  Al Gore is fat.

Counter:  Many far fatter people, like Limbaugh, are on the other side.  Does this affect the validity of either sides argument?  No?

Well then let's examine the real issue at hand.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

You're absolutely right about the tactics of public debate, but that overlooks whether it's good strategy to entertain certain debates at all.  The Right wins hearts and minds* not just because they've mastered the art of persuasion, but because they've mastered the logical misdirection of "issue framing."  In the debate over global warming (and evolution) they`ve successfully framed faux controversies as loaded questions: If you engage them on the merits of their claims, it lends their claims credibility, and they win.  If you refuse to engage them, you're intolerant and closed-minded, and they win.  What's needed is a different debate, which puts their arguments in a context that exposes their illegitimacy.

The germ of this alternative debate lies within the very problem you raise, i.e., the awkwardness of scientists arguing their scholarship to the general public.  I think this awkwardness is largely a byproduct of advanced science not being especially suited to public debate.  For one thing, without enough dumbing-down to render serious discussion impossible, it wouldn't be comprehensible, much less interesting to most audiences.  Which is why science only gets dragged into fora of social controversy by politically, not scientifically motivated interests.

The point is, instead of either taking the denialists' bait or allowing them to define the silence, the consensus holders should educate the public about how actual scientific debate operates generally, how actual science-related public policy is made generally, and how climate science, evolutionary biology and a few other politically controversial areas are treated differently.  Exxon-Mobil and The Discovery Institute would be welcome to join in that debate.  For instance, how does the Defense Department decide whose opinions about chemistry and physics to listen to when designing a nuclear warhead or a submarine?  If certain scientists believe the manned moon landings were a hoax, would it be within customary norms to teach that controversy in the schools?   If not, why not?   Should we cancel the new lunar landing program until every scientist agrees we`ve been there before?  Why not?  Why did we attack Afghanistan when there are structural engineers who argue the Twin Towers were brought down by controlled- demolition-implosions, not airplanes?  Why do we waste so much money on anti-retro-viral drugs when there are biologists with credentials as good as Lindzen's who insist HIV doesn't cause AIDS?  Why don't they get to overrule the consensus?  

In other words, just what are the customary parameters in the academy, in government, in business, for giving a fringe view equal airtime to a consensus view?   Is that the standard being applied to Global Warming?   If not, why not?  And if the answer is that this controversy is manufactured, then shouldn't it go without saying that scientists have better things to do than engage these provocateurs in phony arguments?

I assume these points have all been made at least piece meal, but I'm not aware that they've been made and repeated coherently in a way that explains that the controversy isn't about Global Warming. It's about how and why climate science is held to a different standard than fields without well-funded antagonistic constituencies.  This is the context that needs to be hammered over and over until it's at least as familiar to the public as the venerated scholarship of Michael Crighton.

------------------------------------------------------------

* Query whether their inability to accomplish this anywhere beyond our shores speaks to what pathetic adversaries we are, or merely that we're the only ones they hate enough to inspire a serious effort.

...why they even had a debate on this subject, when there was nothing to debate about. I can understand a debate on moral issues, where one side has to out-charm the opposition. I can also understand a dry, scientific debate, which while not very thrilling, can put the two different scientific viewpoints face to face, while a panel of also scientists judge who has the better case. But a debate between scientists and a group of people who make a living out of charming others, even if just to buy books, was never going to be equal. You're right that people don't work that way, the public is never going to go with the facts when there's a nice juicy conspiracy theory or hoax to side with that means not actually having to do anything. But again, as has been mentioned, once scientists leave the facts, they become politicians and lose the moral high ground. The only alternative is to have two groups, one for the scientific community, another to propagandise to the masses and brainwash them. Because when you're dealing with that kind of 'masses', there's nothing wrong with brainwashing, as one side's going to do it anyway. But what the hell possessed them to get drawn into a debate?

>>>triumph of sane real scientists over the Antropogenic Global Warming poli-scientists >>>

No wonder the world is doomed.

Dr. Leo. Yes, absolutely. Changing the context is the only thing that makes sense, reframing the conversation rather than engaging in a "he said/she said" debate.

Re: why climate change has to play by different rules, I always assumed it had to do with who stands to get richer from the status quo, from postphoning major changes as long as possible. There's not a lot of money on the line (I don't think) with the other examples you listed. I guess I'm just cynical that way.

You may well be right about which persuasion tactics to adopt, but don't for a minute believe that the pro-crisis side of the argument have the sole monopoly on facts.

I mean, each of Schmidt's opponents is highly educated in the field of science/medicine: they are unlikely to argue in a way that doesn't respect solidly grounded science: Philip Stott, for example, has a very open and relaxed attitude as to what does impinge on global mean temperatures, including anthropogenic GHGs.

What he, and others, like even Schmidt's highly esteemed sparring partner, Roger A. Pielke Sr, think is that the scientific debate has to broaden out to beyond CO2/GHGs.

The fact that realclimate and others tends to defend the IPCC line (with its overemphasis on CO2/GHGs) regardless and that many here think that there is no debate to be had (when a fuller and fairer picture of the science will probably only begin to emerge when more thorough analyses are undertaken at finer levels of resolution) means that media-types can get away with trotting out highly unscientifically grounded comments that the political class tend to lap up.

The self-reflected image of the IPCC (in the media mirror) together with the rule to find "consensus" ought to ring alarm bells everywhere: it is credited as if it were a purely scientific body when we all know that it is a highly politicized one. And how many of the usually quoted "2500 scientists" are a) actually scientists; b) actually made a contribution that was taken on board; c) got to write the Report chapters; d) were involved in the Summary; e) got to see how their contribution was used prior to Summary publication; f) were happy with post-Summary changes to their efforts; and g) felt the need to resign as a result of "issues" with the process; etc, etc.?

In Britain, virtually the whole political class have bought the IPCC/soft Green lobby version of CO2 hook, line and sinker, but wider debate is now, just about, beginning to get back on the media/political agenda.

Until climate science is grounded by unifying principles that have at least solid explanatory (if not always predictive) power the public debate about how we should respond to our growing knowledge of changes in climate ought to continue very much on the basis of "convince me that your theory holds water and that it matters in this context"; "why did the oceans cool between 200x and 200y?" etc.

It ought to be a multi-faceted (non-Oxford) type debate.

Perhaps, again in the public debate, more emphasis could be given to vulnerability reduction/adaptation policies and how we can arrive at reasonable budgets and other measures that people generally can live with.

>> It ought to be a multi-faceted (non-Oxford) type debate. >>

Indeed, sticking one's head in total denial, or saying I know, he told me, will not prevent extinction of LIFE on this planet.

Bring on the debate so ALL can participate and ALL can become acquainted with the facts as we know them.

I have had enough experience on Internet forums to know that debate from all sides brings home the bacon.

One thing you learn from online debates.

You can never prove someone wrong, as long as they do not choose to be disproven.

At best, all you can do is eliminate each and every stonewall arguement piece by piece.

And finally, at the end all you can do is humiliate them infront of a crowd.

"You can never prove someone wrong, as long as they do not choose to be disproven."

Yes you can.  They may not aknowledge it though.

But let the readers decide.  Most people who actually vote have at least some sense of what is reasonable.  That is why if one elucidates using reason and a reasonably interesting format, like Al gore did for example, the public opinion that votes can be brought around.

Our founders were wise indeed, in that they let the sophists speak as loudly as those who are pursuing the truth.  They trusted in the common sense of we the people.

That sense is often mislead but eventually comes around to reality.  The Bush war regime now has a 30% approval rating.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

"Passion cooks, reason cleans" or "Reason may not always be the life to the party, but she'll drive you home and sober your ass up". Wise woman, my mom.

'If only God the gift had gae us, to see oursel's as others see us'
Robert Burns

Re: A long rant about facts, persuasion, and global warming

I guess it's OK here (though while I am personally interested, I don't feel qualified and hence any more able to stay adequately focused on all this, possibly along with a few others who may not feel motivated to make it even as far as this fine forum), but here are a few subjective points to offer.

While some facts do need length for the full stories to be adequately told, when talking about persuasion on global warming, I suspect few media outlets are prepared to permit anything more than a sound bite that will feed the next headline.

Hiding behind the veracity of science is comforting as a justification, and its purity over realities of communication a possible consolation, but care must be taken that one only sees one aspect of science as 'the truth', and remains didactic in fighting from only that corner.

These are challenges to be addressed,  whist avoiding a few other things.

High on the list, possibly, could be rants?

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.

>> let the sophists speak as loudly >>

yes, and look what happened to Socrates !!!!!

No, you can not beat a deceitful sophist in near time, only in hindsight.

And hindsight comes too late to save the dead!

This game has the VERY highest stakes that are possible.
Survival or extinction.

>> Bring on the debate so ALL can participate and ALL can become acquainted with the facts as we know them. >>

OK, firstly note I'm talking about anti-crisis or anti-alarmist viewpoints on this, which allows for some warming and even concern about CO2/GHGs.

Secondly, my bit about "non-Oxford"/multi-faceted debate was more at the meta-level -- I just care about the public knowing about the nuanced aspects to this. There is a strong need for some debate/discussion happening on the media between active climate scientists of differing perspectives, in which the range of perspectives gets covered.

In particular what I want to see is the scientific debate (such as the Schmidt/PielkeSr one) -- where one side is willing to learn from, as well as test, the other -- taken to a larger audience. This is real science at play and it has nothing to do with staged debates.

The winner ought to be (in a, one would hope, not unrealistically idealistic world) explanatory and predictive science, helping to bring the next landmark/paradigm shift stuff that bit closer and highly informative in the mean time: assertion and counter-assertion, scepticim, fresh hypothesis, new observations and analysis.

Here are some points from the sceptical-nuanced perspective that often don't get addressed in the debate.

What about:

The fact (according to PielkeSr) that anthropogenic CO2 counts for at most 30% of human climate forcings? In other words, most of human climate forcings are something other than what we're being bludgeoned into believing for the sake of consensus, even if the IPCC gives aerosols and land use (two of the other significant human forcings) a cursory nod in its Summary.

Also, the lack of any predictive skill of computational models (in a multi-decadal sense) at the regional level, and very little globally.

The cooling of the oceans 2003-5.

The very innocent query as to why anthropogenic CO2/GHGs (of all things) ought to be the major decisive factor impinging on our planet's temperature when all these factors are at play (courtesy of Philip Stott), not to mention controlling climate by tinkering with this tiny number of variables as those arguing from the IPCC Reports/Summaries are wont to assert:

"cosmic ray flux; solar magnetic cycles; sunspot cycles; meteorite impacts; cosmic dust; changes in the Earth's orbit around the sun; changes in the angle of tilt of the Earth upon its axis; shorter duration 'wobbles' of the Earth upon its axis; the changing shape of the Earth [the Earth's mean dynamic oblateness parameter (J2)]; the changing rotational velocity of the Earth's core; changes in the Earth's magnetic field; tectonic movements of the Earth; volcanic eruptions; changes in the circulation patterns of the oceans; changes in ocean salinity and chemistry; changes in ice-sheet stability (the mass-balance of glaciers); changes in sea-ice thickness; changes in atmospheric water vapour, the most important 'greenhouse' gas of all; clouds and cloudiness; natural variations in atmospheric gases, including carbon dioxide and methane; changing albedo (reflectivity of Earth) through landscape change, natural and human; overall surface radiative energy fluxes; vegetation, agricultural and industrial fires and their emissions; the emission of aerosols, both natural and human; the emission of tar balls; human-induced emission of 'greenhouse' gases; other known factors not listed; unknown factors; chaotic attractors;

non-linear feedback links for all of the above are acknowledged to play their part."

Oh, and OK to stray just a smidge outside of the scientific debate itself:

How can the IPCC tolerate being so misrepresented by the media? Shouldn't it insist on wording not dissimilar to:

"The IPCC has announced that some 2500 contributors to its scientific reports (written with special emphasis on consensus where possible)" "concur" (as in "haven't threatened legal action to have their names dissociated from the view") "that anthropogenic global warming is occuring with a rough probablity somewhere in the 10th decile."

Surely then it could live with itself, and keep a (collective) straight face.

['Course the notion of consensus amongst 2500 of the world's scientists had to fall by the wayside, but remember we've got the UN's reputation for truth and fraternity to uphold here, so that's just the way it's got to be...]

That's me done for now; bottom line: the upmarket end of the media debate should be taken way more upmarket; some of the rest of it might follow...