Well, I note that they predictably use the hurricane icon along with images of melting ice, though there's much more uncertainty about how hurricanes will change than about whether ice is going to be melting...
There may be uncertainty, but the political brain tends to grant this sort of thing some poetic license (but there is a question of how much is too much--I don't think this particular infraction crosses the line)...
I liked this video. I am not a major fan of the Blue Man Group, but I have a healthy respect for them. The BMG style is to simplify everything, which is, of course, kind of an anathema for the scientific mind, which sticks to the maxim that the devil is in the details (and playing "devil's advocate" to tease out those crucial details).
The Political Brain article was a dose of fresh air. I have said that myself on different blogs. People are emotional animals. Instinct, emotions, and in particular, habitual thinking, tend to trump pure intellect, and this is true for the educated elite as well as the common man. I'll never forget the day that a guy with a computer science and a BSA (Plus 20 years military experience) told me that humans cannot affect the earth's environment - and the "reason" this mega-brain gave? That would be because humans are too small to be seen from space. Clearly that wasn't the educated part his brain speaking. I reminded him that an invisible virus could kill him. Whoops, time for a subject change!
That's the challenge of science, which people like Carl Sagan and Michio Kaku are trying to address: the general public can't read your dissertations. They don't know the language, haven't got the training, and so can't understand your logic.
The usual response from the scientific community has been to not respond at all.
That leaves the playing field unopposed for the fundies and vigilante types who would resurrect the Inquisition against you. So you can't keep doing that.
The Blue Man Group video reaches people who are not scientists and engages people in the debate, whether they agree or not. It also does it in an entertaining way.
You may respond that it may be fun and entertaining, but it's wrong.
The challenge is to show how it's wrong in a way that people without higher degrees in science can understand, in a way besides a scientific-jargon-laden 20 page treatise which a regular person browsing the ScienceBlogs won't read..
Otherwise the BMG video trumps you.
As I understand it, ScienceBlogs itself is an attempt to do public outreach so people get a more realistic idea about the discipline of science, and to show that "scientists are people too", so to speak. Along with this, the general public has to be shown, in terms they can understand, what the scientific realities are behind some of the issues of the day, such as man's effect on climate.
The challenge is to reach people emotionally, but without distorting the science. That is much, much easier said than done.
Well, I note that they predictably use the hurricane icon along with images of melting ice, though there's much more uncertainty about how hurricanes will change than about whether ice is going to be melting...
There may be uncertainty, but the political brain tends to grant this sort of thing some poetic license (but there is a question of how much is too much--I don't think this particular infraction crosses the line)...
All just part of the annoying voice of global warming created by Laurie David.
just part of the annoying voice of global warming created by Laurie David.
I liked this video. I am not a major fan of the Blue Man Group, but I have a healthy respect for them. The BMG style is to simplify everything, which is, of course, kind of an anathema for the scientific mind, which sticks to the maxim that the devil is in the details (and playing "devil's advocate" to tease out those crucial details).
The Political Brain article was a dose of fresh air. I have said that myself on different blogs. People are emotional animals. Instinct, emotions, and in particular, habitual thinking, tend to trump pure intellect, and this is true for the educated elite as well as the common man. I'll never forget the day that a guy with a computer science and a BSA (Plus 20 years military experience) told me that humans cannot affect the earth's environment - and the "reason" this mega-brain gave? That would be because humans are too small to be seen from space. Clearly that wasn't the educated part his brain speaking. I reminded him that an invisible virus could kill him. Whoops, time for a subject change!
That's the challenge of science, which people like Carl Sagan and Michio Kaku are trying to address: the general public can't read your dissertations. They don't know the language, haven't got the training, and so can't understand your logic.
The usual response from the scientific community has been to not respond at all.
That leaves the playing field unopposed for the fundies and vigilante types who would resurrect the Inquisition against you. So you can't keep doing that.
The Blue Man Group video reaches people who are not scientists and engages people in the debate, whether they agree or not. It also does it in an entertaining way.
You may respond that it may be fun and entertaining, but it's wrong.
The challenge is to show how it's wrong in a way that people without higher degrees in science can understand, in a way besides a scientific-jargon-laden 20 page treatise which a regular person browsing the ScienceBlogs won't read..
Otherwise the BMG video trumps you.
As I understand it, ScienceBlogs itself is an attempt to do public outreach so people get a more realistic idea about the discipline of science, and to show that "scientists are people too", so to speak. Along with this, the general public has to be shown, in terms they can understand, what the scientific realities are behind some of the issues of the day, such as man's effect on climate.
The challenge is to reach people emotionally, but without distorting the science. That is much, much easier said than done.