The news that Sarah Palin has found a new platform for her particular take on reality brings to mind one of the biggest obstacles to the development of meaningful action on the climate change front -- or any other serious public policy challenge, for that matter.
Palin is more akin to Paris Hilton or Pia Zadora than she is to most other public figures in two ways. First, she brings no obvious talent or experience to the public sphere, just popularity afforded her first by the electorate of a small and politically quirky state, and by the last man standing in one of the weakest fields of Republican presidential hopefuls in the party's history. Second, she is a lightning rod for contempt from those who find themselves troubled by the fact that such a character would enjoy such popularity.
Both factors should and do give pause to anyone pondering a career path that involves sharing the rarified air of celebrity. After all, it seems that one of the easiest routes is to deny science, rationalism, and intellectual accomplishment. And why would you want to subject yourself -- and your expose your family -- to the vicious attack dogs of the opposition?
This goes far to explaining why so many scientists prefer the shadows of the laboratory and classroom to the public spotlight. Of course, they may genuinely believe that scientists should stick to science and let politicians handle policy. But the pitfalls of celebrity make it clear that there is very little in the way of incentives to convince a scientist to don the mantle of a "public figure."
Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum, among others, detail the consequences to one of the most notable scientists who did bridge the gap between science and celebrity in last year's book, Unscientific America. Carl Sagan was denied membership in the National Academy of Sciences in large part because he had dared to go public.
It took until NASA's chief climatologist, James Hansen, was well into his 60s that he finally conceded he was obliged to get involved in public policy debates, if for no other reason than the science his field was producing implied a miserable future for his descendents. His first book, Storms of my Grandchildren, wasn't published until he was 68, and in it he devotes much space to explaining why he took so long, even though the dangers posed by climate change had been clear long ago.
The revelation, if you can call it that, from the hacked University of East Anglia emails, that many a climatologist can be short-tempered, petty and vindictive ("I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!) resulted in an incredible slew of hypocritical invective thrown their way and has only made it less likely that they will step onto the public stage to share their critical findings. A few days ago I had to terminate an email correspondence with someone who just couldn't get past the idea that two of the most cited email authors, Phil Jones and Michael Mann, are "politically and personally compromised." It didn't matter how much scientific information I offered to explain my confidence that thousands of climatologists actually know what they're writing about; all climate data are now suspect, it seems, because a few scientists couldn't keep their cool. Any attempt to divert attention to their actual scientific output was dismissed as "hero worship."
And yet, we need more climatologists to step up and risk sullying themselves with the cult of celebrity. If we're going to win the war against irrationalism, we have to play the game, engage the public with the media of the moment, and do what we can to change minds. There really isn't an alternative strategy at our disposal.
I see a few individuals are testing the waters. The University of Oxford's Myles Allen, one of "trillionth tonne" promoters, has been writing for the Guardian of late. Gavin Schmidt is among the most generous of the Real Climate gang when it comes to requests for assistance from journalists. And Stephen Schneider decided decades ago that some degree of public activity was essential.
But we need more. We need a veritable avalanche of experts willing to take part in an organized assault on the public sphere. The average citizen needs to understand just how solid the science of anthropogenic global warming really is, and why it is that the term "consensus" is more than appropriate in this case. And here's the kicker: the more scientists that do take of the challenge, the safer it will be for everyone else. They can share successful message-crafting strategies (calling it "framing" if you want), stop reinventing the wheel each time CNN or the NY Times gives a call, overwhelm the mainstream media with consistent talking points, and make it even harder for the pseudo-experts to peddle their propaganda. The more scientists there are willing to be quoted, interviewed and profiled, the less likely it is that any one of them will get caught up in the cult of celebrity. One Paris Hilton/Sarah Palin is a curiosity; 2500 of them, not so much.
So many voices have been trying to improve the quality of science communication for decades now. Maybe we should focus more on quantity.
- Log in to post comments
Concise and well written.
. . . or because his record, apart from popularization efforts, was good but not spectacular . . . and he got the NAS Public Welfare Medal in 1994 . . .
Or maybe we just need to engineer a massive change in American society, i.e. keeping the entertainment industry out of things they shouldn't be poking their fucking moron noses into.
Obviously you haven't read the emails. They clearly demonstrate the things your friend is trying to tell you.
They even address the "thousands of scientists" that allegedly signed on to the letter. It is pure hogwash and they admit it.
Octobe 9, 1997 email. "I am very strongly in favor of as wide and rapid a distribution as possible for endorsements. I think the only thing that counts is numbers. The media is going to say â1000 scientists signedâ or â1500 signedâ. No one is going to check if it is 600 with PhDs versus 2000 without. They will mention the prominent ones, but that is a different story.
ConclusionâForget the screening, forget asking them about their last publication (most will ignore you). Get those names!"
November 12, 1997, "I am always worried about this sort of thing. Even if you have 1000 signatures, and appear to have a strong backup, how many of those asked did not sign?"
November 27 email. "Dear Eleven,
I was very disturbed by your recent letter, and your attempt to get others to endorse it. Not only do I disagree with the content of this letter, but I also believe that you have severely distorted the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) âviewâ when you say that âthe latest IPCC assessment makes a convincing economic case for immediate control of emissions.â â¦"
Bottom line young man is that you have been had by a bunch of con artists..
I argued on Mike the Mad Biologist's blog a week ago that Chris Mooney had a point when he wrote an article along similar lines to James's suggestion. I was in the minority.
However, the reality is that the mainstream media will call you up, call a crank or both. If a scientist isn't there, they will go with the crank. If 80% of success is showing up, scientists have largely failed. There is largely a vacuum where articulate working climate scientists should be.
Fred Pearce has an excellent article on Yale E360 about the Climategate debacle http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2221 - it makes for depressing reading.
If there had been a coordinated effort by the main scientific and environmental organisations on the day the story broke, the media in the UK would have covered the story in a very different way. But they really didn't, and almost no one else got involved - so the cranks got their vacuum, and their chance.
Brer Fox - I think your the one whose been had. The October email you cite has a sensible suggestion. I'm sure a thousand climate researchers would have signed such a letter (whether they has PhD's or not makes no difference) - its just that no one could be bothered to organise it. Contrast this with the zombie-like Oregon Pertition, which is a pile of cack.
The three emails you cite present no problems to the average fair minded person, but do point up the relative gutlessness of some climate scientists back in 1997 - which is kind of what James is talking about.
Now, if you can release the emails for those involved in denying climate change for the last 20 years, we can all have some fun as well....
What have you got against Pia Zadora?
I think that Lawrence M. Krauss's column in the December 2009 issue of Scientific American is the key to the only approach that can really work in the long term. He looks back at something he said a dozen years ago:
'The increasingly blatant nature of the nonsense uttered with impunity in public discourse is chilling. Our democratic society is imperiled as much by this as any other single threat, regardless of whether the origins of this nonsense are religious fanaticism, simple ignorance or personal gain.'
He then looks at the situation today, before rounding off:
'What makes people so susceptible to nonsense in public discourse? Is it because we do such a miserable job in schools teaching what science is all about - that it is not a collection of facts or stories but a process for weeding out nonsense to get closer to the underlying beautiful reality of nature?'
In other words: If we try to teach science as facts at school, or to promote it as facts to adults, we simply make the people at the receiving end more vulnerable to the next person who comes along with their own body of dogma. But if we teach the skills of critical questioning, and of resolving conflict by agreeing on the nature of objective tests, then we build up their intellectual immune system.
In the case of climate change, I do agree that more people should join the discussion, and I believe that what we should try to do is seek a dialogue with those who disagree in which we work between us to identify objective experimental tests which we can all agree in advance will help us all to decide one way or another.
James,
Have you really read the emails? If not you have no business trying to lay down cover for the scientists involved.
I suspect you haven't because you seem like an honest chap and if you had, you certainly should have serious problems with the the disgusting and anti-scientific behavior of the principal players.
Do you really think that denying access to data in violation of Freedom of Information requests, "losing" the original data and conspiring to distort the scientific record are just a matter of a few scientists losing their "cool"?
If you answer yes to both of these questions my opinion of your journalistic and personal integrity will drop by orders of magnitude.
@Lance:
You are apparently inable to learn. People have explained to you, and many others, that CRU is not the repository of raw data. All that data can be obtained from the original sources.
You have also been explained that there was no conspiring to distort the scientific record. Au contraire, there was conspiring to STOP the distortion of the scientific record. Any objective and honest person would have been appalled at the Soon&Baliunas paper (or the publication behavior of Willie Soon in general).
And everyone who has paid attention (McIntyre even posted the response) knows that the FOI requests were denied by the FOI officer. Apparently, he considered the FOI requests not to fulfill the criteria. Hence, denying access to the data was NOT a violation of the FOI act!
Marco - Lance is a serial liar. You should know that by now ...
The response to McIntyre's FOIA response was very clear:
1. The roughly 5% of the data not already in the public domain was given to CRU (actually, sometimes purchased) with restrictions on its distribution.
2. CRU was working on getting those agreements amended, where possible, to enable CRU to release the data.
FOIA requests are accepted/denied by specialist staff, as is the appeal, not the scientists at CRU.
McIntyre published the response. There's no "there" there.
Hey, lying Lance:
Please tell us what ORIGINAL data (not copies, but original) was lost by CRU?
And why the scare quotes around "losing"? There's nothing strange about some tape reels getting lost 25 years ago during an office move, long, long, before anyone imagined that the copies of data on those tapes would be requested by a non-scientist whose goal in life would be to get people like Jones fired.
They also delete data from stations they've dropped from their database due to unreliability. Please explain to us why one would need data that's not used to recreate their results?
But answer the first question, first. Please tell us - in specific detail - what *original* data was scare-quote lost unscare-quote.
I've had this conversation with colleagues in the Physics department. Most scientists here in Australia seem to share the same distaste of politics that normal people have; they'd simply rather be involved in something else. Compound that with the knowledge that the kind of multivariate considerations intellectuals are used to is anathema to the voting public, and it's easy to see why scientists want to stay away.
Case in point -- Lance's objection to my opinion that laws are a good way to make things happen. The stupid, it burns.
Yep, that's Tom Wigley.
Scientists will speak up when someone is distorting the science, no matter what direction the distortion is in. Even when nobody is watching. Even when the distortion would help policies that they would otherwise agree with. Because it wouldn't be right.
It's called intellectual honesty. Get some.
Oops, correct link here:
http://eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=40&filename=880476729.txt
(Preview doesn't work, server gives
Error in tag: Can't find included template module 'HTML Head')
Martin Vermeer,
You are wasting your time here. You will soon be called "stupid" and a "serial liar" for pointing out what anyone who cares to actually investigate can find by reading the CRU emails.
Luckily they are easily accessible and people, other than those that have decided that any behavior however dishonest or anti-scientific is justifiable in the name of the AGW cause, can see the truth for themselves.
I won't be wasting anymore of my time here.
In other words, you won't be backing up your statement that CRU "lost" original data.
No surprise.
And Martin Vermeer isn't backing up your position regarding the e-mails showing scientific fraud, blah blah blah. He's saying just the opposite.
Hey hog doza - do you anything else except piss your religion all over the internet? It's over son. Scam Over.
or.....Keep that finger in the dike. have faith that you made a difference wringing your rigtheous hands for a couple years over a fraudulent hoax. whatever makes you feel important is good with me.
Why I bother...
Here is a quote from a Nov 19th New York Times on line article about the malfeasance of the CRU.
"In a statement on its website, the CRU said: 'We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.' "
Dehogaza, since you have NO scientific credentials it may come as a surprise to you that even a freshman science student would be failed if he turned in a write up of an assigned scientific experiment without the actual data, but tried instead to list only "value-added (quality controlled and homogenized) data".
So is the NY times a "denialist" site or is the East Anglia CRU lying?
You of course think this is fine for scientists charged with providing one of the main data sets used in IPCC reports, that you think justify telling other how to live their lives, to say "Hey we threw out the actual data, but trust us these "adjusted", "value-added" and "homogenized" data are just as good or even better. Trust us."
Try to actually answer my points and not attack me personally or change the subject.
Of course I'm not holding my breath that you can actually do either.
Lance admits that CRU has no original data to delete. CRU doesn't hold the original raw data, THE FUCKING VARIOUS NATIONAL MET OFFICES THAT GATHER IT DO. They send *copies* of the raw data, and why should CRU keep those copies?
If anyone wants the real raw data, they can go to the original sources.
In essence, CRU is saying "we don't provide backup services for the entire world".
Jeebus chryist on a crutchist.
How hard is this to understand?
95% of which is held by GHCN, including scans of original datasheets.
Division of labor.
Actually, CLIMAT is charged with that (as much as anyone can be claimed to hold that charge), and GHCN is the public repository for that.
That's 95% of the data used by CRU.
The other 5% is proprietary, and they don't hold because there's no need. By contract, they're not allowed to distribute it, and they don't have the original data in the first place, just copies.
You're a continuous, non-stop lying fuck, lance.
"Hey we threw out the actual data"
No, their *copies* of the actual data.
95% of which is archived at GHCN.
Including raw data:
Like this.
Why should CRU keep photocopies of original station data that's in the public domain when GHCN already does so????
CRU is an evaluator of data, not an originator of data.
Liar, liar lance on fire ...
I've actually worked in science, while you're just a math instructor with a BS in physics who failed a PhD program, so don't get too high on that horse of yours.
On the other hand, I do have honesty credentials, while you seem intent on lying endlessly about just about everything.
I'll take those morally superior credentials, thank you.
Umm, no, they say "you can go to GHCN and get the scans of the individual station data and build up your own dataset from scratch without bothering us at all, for the 95% in the public domain".
And, "for the 5% of the rest, you can go buy it from the individual countries just as we had to do, and build up your own dataset from that".
No where is it said you must trust them.
In fact, you can say "they're totally fucked, we'll use GISTEMP instead!"
Maybe we can both agree that GISTEMP is a better representation of global temps, since it only depends on the 95% of the common data that is in the public domain, including scans of individual hand-written station reports?
Hmmm, Lance? Wanna go there?
Lance, you're really amazing, CRU doesn't provide this dataset. 95% comes from CLIMAT. archived by GHCN.
Just how wrong do you need to be wrong, before you're willing to say, "I'm wrong"?
dehogaza,
As usual voluminous lies infilled with personal attacks.
They admit they "lost" the original data. You of course attempt to obfuscate the situation with irrelevant diversions.
You seem to think that multiple posts filled with dodges and misdirections is somehow changing the basic facts of a very simple statement.
You are pathetic.
Oh, and to my "failed" PhD. The only reason you know that I haven't completed my PhD in physics is that I TOLD you I hadn't finished it.
I haven't "failed" at anything. I have just taken courses and worked on my thesis sporadically for the last five years. Hardly a unique situation for a returning adult student that has other responsibilities.
Your continued abuse of this irrelevant information, which I provided, only underscores your malicious intent and inability to argue in good faith.
You are truly pathetic. No wonder you have been banned from multiple scientific blogs.
"They admit they "lost" the original data. "
This is a misleading statement. They did not archive their copy of the raw data. The data still exist in multiple other places. Their failure to archive the data is certainly a significant oversight, but hardly the crime that it's been made out to be.
I didn't say it was a crime Doug, just very sloppy and unprofessional.
Also saying its "available else where" over simplifies the issue.
They admit they have manipulated the original data. There should be a clear record showing what the original data was, how it was manipulated and homogenized. To say "the data is out there at other sources" puts an unnecessary burden on those trying to reconstruct and verify the validity of the "adjustments" to the original data.
Sigh - here as elsewhere on the blogosphere, Lance demonstrates the Dunning-Kruger
effect nicely. Not only is he incompetent to understand how multiple lines of scientific evidence contribute to a robust theory of AGW, he's also
unable to recognize his own incompetence, or that others may be more competent than he is.
Lance might overcome D-F, if only he'd make the effort to learn. In any case, it's unlikely he or his dhogaza-mocking sockpuppets will respond to our efforts here. For the benefit of lurkers more self-aware than Lance, it may be sufficient to link to the Start Here page at RealClimate for general information; and SkepticalScience for detailed rebuttals, with citations, to specific denier talking points.
Bull.
And, of course, a much better test is to take the original data then come up with one's own global temp reconstruction algorithm. You could call it, say, GISTEMP. And you could then compare the two. Hmmm ...
Also, Doug...
It's really only an oversight in hindsight ... after all, the real raw data for the 95% in the public domain exists at GHCN.
Back to Lance, who apparently can't post without lying ...
I've not been banned from a single scientific blog, Lance. Love the lying.
PS: I don't consider a blog run by a high-school educated weathercaster a science blog. And if you do, that's another interesting data point that's not exactly shall we say flattering.
Lance admits, then, that it's not the original data, but only copies ...
Sigh - here again, as elsewhere on the blogosphere, Lance demonstrates the Dunning-Kruger effect nicely. He appears incompetent to understand that AGW is supported by multiple independent lines of scientific evidence; and he seems unable to recognize his own incompetence, or that others are more competent than he is.
Lance might overcome D-K, if only he'd make the effort to learn. In any case, it's unlikely he'll benefit from our efforts here. For lurkers more self-aware than Lance, it may be sufficient to link to the Start Here page at RealClimate for general information; and SkepticalScience for detailed rebuttals, with citations, to specific denier talking points.
That link should be SkepticalScience, of course. I hope preview is fixed someday.
Thanks Mal Adapted!
So that's how science works. You wait until the "experts" on one side of a scientific issue outnumber the ones on the other side of the issue and then stop trying to worry your pretty little head over the issue.
Wow, they even have a sciency sounding name for it, the Dunning-Kruger Effect. Can't argue with half-baked pseudo-scientific psyco-babble when they call it an "effect". Does this "effect" generate a Dunning-Kruger "field"? Maybe we can harness it to generate alternative energy.
Here I was thinking an hypothesis' agreement with empirical evidence and non-falsifiability were the bellwethers of scientific validity.
I have been wasting all this time trying to asses the evidence, review the literature and use critical thinking.
You on the other hand just find a theory that "emotionally resonates" with your personal proclivities and then look for an authority to tell you that you are correct.
It much make your life so much easier.
Thanks for passing this time saver along to those of us that have been wasting so much effort investigating the evidence and applying reason and scientific analysis.
There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the time Lance has wasted has been spent doing anything other than read CA, WUWT, etc.
Lance, FWIW, I think you have more than enough raw brainpower to become competent. You obviously have high verbal-linguistic aptitude. If you've been admitted to a doctoral program in physics, it's reasonable to assume you have sufficient logical-mathematical aptitude as well. Your problem may simply be that AGW theory encompasses phenomena that are orders of magnitude more complex than what a typical physics curriculum deals with. You have been "wasting all this time trying to asses the evidence, review the literature and use critical thinking", because you need to start way before that. You need a thorough understanding of all the subject matter bearing on AGW.
I think you know how to go about it, too, by starting with introductory material and working your way up. You'll also need to become intimate with the massive amount of empirical data, from multiple independent sources, that AGW theory draws on. That only comes from reading all the current literature, conducting experiments, and developing and testing models. Of course, in the process, you'll have to participate fully in the community of professional peers that have been working on this for decades: presenting your ideas at the same conferences and publishing articles in the same journals they do, which unavoidably entails exposing yourself to their unsparing criticism 8^(!
Lance, I honestly believe that when you've absorbed enough basic knowledge, spent enough time working with the data, and have interacted enough with the professional community, you'll appreciate how robust the scientific consensus for AGW is. You just have to put the time in, and not leave out any part of the process!