Nonskeptical Heretics; Unfrozen Cavemen, etc.

Interesting, I think, how journalists with their professional obligation to talk thoughtfully to everyone often end up in the NSH category (as I have) on this, and occupying similar positions on most genuinely interesting questions.

I read that Revkin piece and was surprisingly satisfied by the possibility of a middle ground. After all, good science is all about being a skeptic.

Chris, what do you think the reaction will be (or would be) to such a stance by both complete skeptics and those that espouse a disaster situation? I ask because it's a sad reality that careers can be ruined in some academic circles by questioning the status quo to any degree.

http://scienceblogs.com/framing-science/2007/01/communicating_climate_c…

Over at Framing Science, I've got a lengthy post detailing why the "invisible middle" is a useful guide for journalists to stick to in reporting, and how public opinion polls show that the "unfolding disaster" frame used by Gore et al. does not appear to be engaging the public.

[begin rant:]

Hmmm... Choosing Revkin as an ally is one thing, but Roger Pielke? Wasn't he the one who panned your last book? Pielke may have some points to make about the science, but I think he often has a wrong-headed, narrowly categorical approach with regards to politics. For example, Pielke criticized the Royal Society for speaking out about Exxon:

I have often made the case that there is absolutely no problem with interests organizing to advance their agendas. Organized interests are an important part of how democracy works.

Yes, and democracy also works by shaming these interests when they contribute to spreading disinformation. And it doesn't work when these moneyed interests are able to use their considerable resources to engage in sophistry, and distort an informed public discussion. Why shouldn't the Royal Society call them on that?

And I'm not sure that Andrew Revkin has things completely figured out either. I understand what he was saying about the "bell curve" aspects of journalism (as he elaborated on in this science journalists' forum). But what he didn't go into (at least in this forum) was questions of how risk fits into the equation. There are some things which have only a small chance of happening, but there's a relevant question of what's at stake if they do happen. It seems to me that information like this belongs in the public space, even when there are significant uncertainties (see the precautionary principle).

While I respect calls for moderation, I think there's also a place for a reality-based populism--particularly when there are real questions about how the "reality-making machinery" has operated recently in this country. I'm not only talking about politicians, but journalists. As Jay Rosen of Press Think put it recently, the press's coverage of this administration "[has] been a rout, and it remains one." Hopefully, with the recent elections, things will change. But I think it remains an open question how much they will...

[/Whew. Rant over.]

The idea that the scientists are the alarmists and the policy wonks are now riding in on their white horses to save the day is a real hoot.

Most of the disinformation about global warming has been spread by think tanks, politicians, policy wonks and yes, journalists.

The vast majority of the "popular" articles I have seen on the subject have been either slanted, uninformed or both.

I simply must agree with James Hansen, that "scientists have been too quiet too long."

Chris, I think the term "nonskeptical heretic" is a very poor characterization of the "silent middle" of climate researchers. I would argue that this group, while accepting generally the greenhouse warming story, is probably skeptical (relative to the IPCC) of at least one part of the story. Further, the silent middle stays out of the policy debate and typically states merely that this is a risk that people should pay attention to. Hardly nonskeptical, and hardly heretic. I would argue that the label is useful for journalists, bloggers, policy scientists, and a few climate scientists that aspire to the role of pundit and seek media attention. The extremes (on both sides) are espoused by a small number of climate researchers, these extremes amplified loudly by the advocacy groups and journalists. If nothing else, it is encouraging to see journalists generally accepting the greenhouse warming story and being prepared to ponder the challenges in a thoughtful way. Until recently, too much journalistic energy has been expended in amplifying both extremes.

Thanks everyone. I'm willing to consider that it's not the best label. Labels aren't great anyway. But it does seem to speak to something that I've been feeling lately--namely, a frustration with how this issue has played out, a desire to find a new way of talking about it, so that we can get out of the policy morass....

Judy-

For me at least the half-in-jest phrase NSH has nothing to do with researchers (sorry!), and everything to do with policy. The non-skeptic part refers to accepting the scientific consensus. The heretic part has to do with favoring policy approaches currently not favored by either side of the current debate, e.g., not the approach currently pursued under the FCCC and Kyoto.

In case you missed my response to this same point you made on our blog, here was my response:

Let me say first that the notion of a "middle ground" is not one that I've emphasized. (It is interesting that this phrase has been picked up by several critics of Revkin's article.) When I first brought up the notion of "non-skeptic heretic" I did so tongue-in-cheek as part of our ongoing discussion here (and at Kevin's blog) about "tribalism" in the climate debate. It seemed to me that there is plenty of room for another "tribe." Whether it is up, down, left, right, or middle I don't know. It does seem to cut across political boundaries in a way yet-to-be-seen in the climate debate (e.g., includes both Greg Easterbrook and Dan Sarewitz), which clearly troubles some people.

When I first wrote about this I said the following:

"But what is it that I mean by "non-skeptic heretic"? These are people who accept the science of climate change but do not engage in meaningless exhortations or bland political statements, and instead openly confront some of the real but uncomfortable practical challenges involved with reducing emissions and adapting to climate."

I do mean by this those who openly discuss policy options. I absolutely don't mean the scientific middle ground, which the IPCC WG1 seems to capture pretty well.

So I agree with you 100% when you say "A big majority of scientists working in government labs or universities have nothing to say about the policy options other than to point out out the risks." But these aren't who I at least am referring to. Staying silent on matters of policy can mean ceding the policy discussion to the fringes or being used by advocates, a subject we've discussed before.

Revkin's story did a nice job acknowledging that there is this point of view. Had he been given another quarter page;-) it would have been nice to see some discussion of the views of people like Steve Rayner, Rob Lempert, Karen O'Brien, Frank Laird, and others. If these are unfamiliar names to you, well, that is part of the point of recognizing that there are some smart people saying some really valuable things but who are not really recognized.

Nonskeptical heretic?

Yes, how "heritical" to let the science (and scientists) inform the policy for a change.

The term reminds me of names people make up in high school to differntiate themselves (jocks, greasers, nerds, etc).

It's a cute term -- an ego trip more than anything else. "I'm a 'nonskeptical heritic' one of a select few. See how smart I am? I was right all along."

Dark tent -

One wonders if you read Revkin's article. It was not about "The idea that the scientists are the alarmists and the policy wonks are now riding in on their white horses". It was primarily about *scientists* in that middle ground.

John Fleck:
Apparently, I'm not alone in not being impressed by Revkin...and in thinking that this is as much about policy wonks wanting to appear as heroes as anything else.

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/1/2/131839/3289

"When this form [balance] is overused, it also inevitably tends to highlight the opinions of people at the edges of a debate instead of in the much grayer middle ground, where consensus most likely lies. ..."For every PhD there is an equal and opposite PhD." -- Revkin

... and for every biased, scientifically illiterate journalist, there is an even more biased, scientifically illiterate journalist.

It's no mystery why scientists don't like journalists. The journalists screw up what they tell them every time -- without fail.

Sometimes they do it out of sheer ignorance. Other times they do it on purpose. But they invariably screw it up nonetheless.

James Hansen is right: scientists have been silent too long. It's time the public heard the scientist's words from their own mouths without the usual innacurate "journalistic translation" ("framing", "balance", etc).

Something to think about:

The "middle ground" may be a useful concept when discussing politics, but it really isn't terribly relevant when discussing science. Theories are either correct or incorrect, proven or unproven, supported or unsupported. I'm sorry if that's too Manichean for liberal arts graduates, but that's life in the world of science.

I find myself agreeing enthusiastically with Dark tent here.

And, FWIW, I think I have more respect for people who genuinely believe global warming is not going to be a problem than for people who declare themselves to somehow be above the debate thanks to their scientific illiteracy. (And Chris, this comment is not aimed at you, personally, since this has not been your stance generally in your work.)