Who Should be the Climate Persuaders?
So I’m at the annual AAAS conference and the first session I attended Friday morning was called “Why climate Scientists are from Mars and Science Reporters are from Venus.”
I made that up. The thrust of the session mostly focused on the state of science journalism in the rapidly changing digital media landscape. But in the informal Q & A period, there were a few hot exchanges between journalists and scientists that highlighted why confusion over the role of journalism (and great annoyance with climate reporters) persists among climate scientists.
I had an inkling that the frustrations of climate scientists would come to the fore when MIT’s Kerry Emanuel, a panel discussant, mentioned a poll that said 40 percent of the American public didn’t believe in evolution, while 98 or 99 percent of scientists did. He attributed that wide gap to a communication problem. (Never mind that many people in that 40 percent column, probably for religious reasons, could never be persuaded.)
Kerry’s reasoning for the prevalence of anti-evolution attitudes became clearer when he later stated that every major science organization has asserted that anthropogenic climate change is real and has to be addressed, but that journalists had failed to persuade the public of this.
That’s when Elizabeth Shogren, who covers science for NPR and was one of the panelists, cut in and said, no, you haven’t persuaded the public.
Kerry shot back: no, you haven’t persuaded the public–every story is he said, she said…
At which point, AP science reporter Seth Borenstein, who was another panelist, jumped in:
It’s not about he said, she said. We got over that a decade ago in [reporting on] climate science. The public believes what the public believes.
Towards the end of the session, Tom Rosensteil, a panelist and long-time journalist who now heads up Pew’s Project for Excellence in Journalism, returned to the exchange and tried to disabuse climate scientists of their conception of the media’s role in the climate change debate:
If you’re waiting for the press to persaude the public, you’re going to lose. The press doesn’t see that as its job.
In a follow up post, I’ll discuss another exchange between Borenstein and Peter Gleick (who was in the audience) that also illustrates why climate scientists are from Mars and science reporters are from Venus.
If the press doesn’t see conveying the truth to the public as its job then what exactly is the point of having a press?
I think the operative word in the Rosensteil quote was “persuade”. There is a big difference between a goal of conveying and a goal of persuading.
The Carbon Brief offer to solve this issue, meditor between press, blogger on climate change stories, refering to peer reviewed scientists.
As I don’t want to hog the blog, I’ll link to it rather than post extracts…
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/18/the-carbon-brief-the-european-rapid-response-team/
Shall we say I’m not convinced on the independance aspect.
I’ve never felt that the job of the press was to change opinions or behaviours- when I detect that that is what someone is trying to do my response is usually always negative. All this social engineering, marketting, etc… is ubiquitous anyway. I always thought that the proper response to that is to step aside, not add to it.
By now, climate scientists (should) know what they have to do to regain the publics trust. It’s not about pushing harder, simpler messages (the polar bears are dying, seas are rising etc) but more basic scientific considerations such as archiving your data properly, for a start.
I thin this is one of those cases where a paraphrase is not that helpful. Did Emanuel really say “persuade?” What was the antecedent for “this:” that every major science organization has asserted that anthropogenic climate change is real and has to be addressed, or that climate change has to be addressed?
If the former, that’s conveying a fact. If the latter, then that’s advocacy. I don’t think it’s the media’s role to persuade citizens of the merits of any policy – such as invading a country or addressing climate change – but rather to provide adequate information so that citizens can make a decision.
If there’s a case to be made that they did a good job informing the public about Iraq before the war, or about climate science, I’d sure like to hear it.
If it’s not the media’s job to do this, whose is it?
Yes, he said persuade. All the itals are near quotes, but because the exchange was rapid fire I couldn’t be sure I was capturing it verbatim, so I didn’t want to put it exact quotes.
Thanks, Keith. What was your impression of what Emanuel meant by “this?”
I’ll see if there’s a transcript, cause the exchange would be better conveyed that way.
I should amend my prior comment and say that every major science organization has asserted that anthropogenic climate change is real and has to be addressed is a paraphrase and not a near quote. But he did say “persuade” as Shogren responded strongly to that. In fact, a charge went through the audience at the entire back and forth.
Understood, which is why I think “persuade of what” is the salient question. if the meaning was “to persuade the public that what is true is in fact true” (w/r/t facts not in dispute, such as what scientific organizations are saying), that’s one thing. Persuade in the sense of swaying opinion is quite another.
//rant on
At what point do Emanuel and his ilk take responsibility for their own failures. They have had years to make their case. They damn near succeeded (Copenhagen. Remember?). Yet they fail because:
1) people don’t believe in evolution (whatever! this is just bizarre)
2) people are psychologically impaired to evaluate risk
3) people are scientifically illiterate
4) Suicidal oil company executives
5) Evil Senators
6) And now… Irresponsible reporters.
It’s sad. Really sad. More importantly, the constant finger pointing reveals a disturbing lack of integrity.
At what point do they face up to “gee, maybe our case just isn’t that strong – given all the costs versus benefits”,
(Excluding, of course, MT, who has a monopoly on truth.)
rant off//
Underlying Emanuel’s expressed views (who I know pretty well, and have a lot of respect for), is a common fallacy — that is the idea that: if you only came to understand the facts as I understand them, then you’d share my values (and policy preferences) as well. So there are great battles waged over what facts people happen to believe or not believe, as if that is an important lever in achieving political outcomes. An ironic aspect of this is that it is a well known fact in the social sciences that this is not how people actually behave. But if you actually believe this bit of social science wisdom, then you probably should conclude that there is really no point in trying to convince scientists (bloggers, etc.) who subscribe to this view that they are wrong. Perhaps they’ll burn their fingers on the metaphorical stove often enough to see that that approach is ineffective. We do not appear to be there yet!
PDA, I don’t think there’s any question that Kerry was faulting the media for not persuading the bloc of people who don’t believe that AGW is for real, or significant enough of a problem to be worried about.
The implication from his evolution example was similar: he called it a communication failure that 40 percent of people in U.S. don’t believe in evolution. Who do you think he meant bears responsibility for that communication failure?
In my view, it is only EVER propagandists who believe that the press’s duty is to do anything but communicate bare facts. That Emanuel directs his frustration at the press is highly informative on many levels.
I forget–are you guys the 4th or 5th Estate? Anyhow, in the U.S. the craft of journalism is charged with independent oversight of government, so I’m not surprised that some want to assign it additional responsibilities.
That said, do we really want to go back to the days when a publisher could say ‘you furnish the pictures and I’ll supply the war’?
I don’t have a deep or abiding faith in the intelligence of either Americans or any randomly selected large group of people. After all, we elected George Bush twice, which I consider folly.
But neither do I harbor such a deep contempt of the average human that I would arrogate to myself the power to decide what information should be presented or how the debate influenced. Again, not that I think they’re all that smart, just that I know I am not.
Well, you were there and I wasn’t. It’s my perception that you have a major chip on your shoulder when it comes to these kinds of criticisms of the media, though, so I do allow for the possibility that your perception isn’t accurate. But whether or not he said what you think he said, I still maintain it’s wrong to say it’s the media’s role to persuade.
As far as evolution goes, I do think the media bears some responsibility. When reporting on evolution versus intelligent design, the media has too often seen its role as merely to report what the two sides contend. This is not informing the public. It’s misleading: by treating pseudoscience as “just another scientific theory,” it presents facts inaccurately.
Obviously, there are cultural and religious barriers to understanding as well, and it’s certainly not all the media’s fault. But I think there are a number of people who genuinely don’t know what the science shows, not because they’re fundamentalists, but because it’s been portrayed as a he-said, she-said story.
All I’ve heard from Emanuel when he turns up on TV or in a public forum is his frustration at how things are supposedly being spun in advancement of an anti AGW agenda. Lots of talk about ‘machines’, tobacco lobbying, evolution deniers, etc… though I’ve yet to hear him communicate any science. With concerns such as his I can’t help but feel that this is one squandered opportunity after another.
“… Lots of talk about “˜machines’, tobacco lobbying, evolution deniers, etc”¦ though I’ve yet to hear him communicate any science…”
LoL…Well…if you do not have the science…..
“every major science organization has asserted that anthropogenic climate change is real and has to be addressed”
Emanuel’s statement is an example of gross stupidity. The science organizations do address claimed science (although the science is poor because university scientists tend to be inept statisticians), but they don’t address the planning issues. How is it possible to plan now for a different world 100 years from now. The science organizations simply assume that the bluntest, simplest solutions have to be the best. From what I can see the science organizations are ignorant of the work of Julian Simon, who is the most successful environmental futurist ever.
JD
Sorry for the italics but your editing functions spit out Italics and wouldn’t let me change them.
He attributed that wide gap to a communication problem. (Never mind that many people in that 40 percent column, probably for religious reasons, could never be persuaded.)
“Never” is a pretty strong word. While the evolution analogy does tend to deflate the notion that the public/science opinion gap on climate change is because scientists have failed or done wrong (a common Judith Curry and contrarian meme), those 40% could theoretically be persuaded. With evolution, it would probably take their religious leaders to tell them science isn’t evil, and non-literal interpretations of the Bible are acceptable. It would also take a lifetime of encouraging critical thought. The same holds true for climate science. Most climate change skepticism is fueled by religion of the conservative and libertarian variety. This is a huge barrier, as described by a former libertarian skeptic.
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/12/14/jonathan-abrams-on-climate-change.aspx
These individuals won’t be persuaded by any scientist, unless the scientist tells them there isn’t a problem worth significant government action.
Following up on Michael’s comment in #1, the press exists to make money. They do so by giving the public what it wants, which is a heavy dose of science denialism. Go too far of course and they could theoretically lose credibility and readers, but the number of individuals who crave skeptical stuff, no matter how off the wall, is quite large. It’s certainly not the job of the press to be factual. They will only do so if being factual means maximizing profits. It’s also a self-reinforcing cycle. A good chunk of the public demands science denialism material. The press provides it, keeping much of the public skeptical.
So bringing 40% of the public in line with the balance of scientific views is difficult, and won’t be solved by improved communication from scientists, or hopes of media doing straight reporting. Reading the Abrams commentary above might provide some clues.
Funny to imagine that this same discussion is probably happening concurrently in reverse in religious circles where everyone is bemoaning the fact that 60% of the public don’t believe in creationism.
😉
So NewYorkJ, you’re saying then that the skeptical community is quite large? And are you saying that the press is not factual when it reports on endangered polar bears, Himalayan glaciers, Manhattan under water?
And you’re saying that the Catholic Church, which made its peace with evolution decades ago, has failed?
Newspapers and magazines and TV programming exist because they make a profit. For many, and for many journalists, that profit is a secondary goal that enables their first goal–bringing the news to the people. The pay is cruddy. They don’t do it for the loot.
Are there peer reviewed studies demonstrating the changes in the cerebrel cortex of religious people that makes them immune to climate science arguments?
Michael Tobis Says:
February 18th, 2011 at 2:26 pm <i> If the press doesn’t see conveying the truth to the public as its job then what exactly is the point of having a press?</i>
If the press were in charge of deciding what the truth was we wouldn’t need elections or judges. .
We would simply have a ministry of truth that would decide everything.
The press should not adjudicate values or choose policies. That is why we have democracy. But somebody still needs to separate out the certain from the plausible from the implausible from the nonsensical. Otherwise the elections and judgements will not yield good results, the more so the more complicated things get.
So really, I have two questions. First, if it isn’t the press’s job to provide this service, what purpose do they serve? If it’s just entertainment, fiction works better. Second, if it isn’t the press’s job to do this, how is this function supposed to be achieved?
It appears to me that those arguing for gut instinct are essentially arguing for a severe competitive disadvantage for their own country against those countries which have better connections between realistic information and decision-making.
So, yeah, next time Rajendra Pachauri says that a scientist pointing out an error in AR whatever is practicing ‘voodoo science,’ you journalists just toe the line, you hear? V-o-o-d-o-o. Spell it right. That’s your job.
“Kerry Emanuel, a panel discussant, mentioned a poll that said 40 percent of the American public didn’t believe in evolution, while 98 or 99 percent of scientists did. He attributed that wide gap to a communication problem.”
What is most interesting about this quote (at least to me) is the total arrogance that KE demonstrates. But he is clearly thinking in terms of a polarity of a) evolution explains it all and b) creation explains it all and from his viewpoint a) trumps b) and he just cannot understand why anybody, let alone 40% of the American public, would not agree with him.
The real problem is that KE is defining the problem in either/or terms. However, the reality is likely to be much more complex than that. We can easily demonstrate that by addressing the development of the racing yacht, jet airplanes, or even the modern motor car. In each case we see the results of evolutionary processes, but also creative processes (an example is the recognition of the value of the winged keel in yachting which was later adopted by aircraft manufacturers).
Seems to me that to define the subject as either evolution or creation is to oversimplify. Some of us consider it at least possible that there are limited roles for evolution (hard to refute) but also likely that (among the unknown unknowns) there are creative aspects that we cannot understand. It is clear to the dispassionate observer that we are involved in an incredibly complex situation, and the reality is that we actually understand very little about it.
Much like the climate “debate” in fact.
Tom Fuller says: next time Rajendra Pachauri says that a scientist pointing out an error in AR whatever is practicing “˜voodoo science,’
Pachauri has never done that. It was a fabrication by the press.
@27
Evidence?
Roger, I’m well aware of the fallacy you quote as
“if you only came to understand the facts as I understand them, then you’d share my values (and policy preferences) as well.”
having done some social science and communication courses during my undergrad. However, your paraphrasing of Emmanuel’s supposed fallacy is incorrect imho. It would be better phrased as
“if you only got presented with the relevant facts and explanations, then you’d share my understanding of the issue. ”
Understanding doesn’t translate very strongly at all into behavior (as per the fallacy as quoted by you). But apparently, my understanding of Emmanuel’s line of thinking is also faulty, since more information doesn’t necessarily lead to the public accepting the scientific view. Since it’s political outlook “” not education “” that seems to motivate one’s belief on this subject (where “this subject” refers to climate change but is probably revevant to any politically, ethically or religuously charged subject).
“If you’re waiting for the press to persaude the public, you’re going to lose. The press doesn’t see that as its job.”
The problem is that most scientists don’t see it as their job either. They define their job as doing science; not to educate (let alone peruade) the public about it (Most would probably point to the formal education system as being primarily responsible for such education, plus an important role for parents and the media for information)
Btw I can very well understand that the word “persuade” provokes a strong reaction. It’s much more about educating and informing people about the scientific understanding of an issue.
People like Al Gore, who appear to strive to put a wedge between “reality based” Democrats, and Republicans on this issue, have to a large extent fomented what is larger a political based divide. Based on the polls, I think very few (less than 15%) of the “deniers” deny AGW on religious/philosophical grounds.
”
“If you’re waiting for the press to persaude the public, you’re going to lose. The press doesn’t see that as its job.”
The problem is that most scientists don’t see it as their job either”
Wish that was the case with climate science. Instead we have Hansen, Schmidt, Emanuel, Pierrehumbert and many others. The science would be more trustworthy if the “scientists” were not invested in the results.
JD
When the subject is doing something about climate change, people can have very similar understandings of the science, but value the costs and risks of decarbonization very differently. Thus, they disagree on taking action – on doing something.
Climate science is new and incomplete. When debating policy, those wanting action emphasize the downside risks; the other side uncertainty and potential upsides. It appears that one side believes in climate science and one does not. That’s a misperception.
The underlying calculus on both sides is perfectly rational – not a lack of information or education or some society wide psychological failing (or even bad reportage by bloggers). If you think enforcing global decarbonization will lead to war, perhaps of the nuclear variety, you’ll likely accept some climate risk. If you think decarbonization is something we ought to do anyway, your risk tolerance will be much lower…
Politics and values play prominently in the cost/benefit anlysis for decarbonization, and that’s appropriate. Conservatives, by and large, want to do nothing on climate, but its ludicrous to propose they can’t do physics. I suspect more Republicans understand the Clausius-Clapeyron equation than Democrats (Tea-Partiers know Antoine’s equation works best).
#25 Michael
At the height of my mothers carreer she edited nine publications. She still edits 2 even though she is in her 80’s.
During the recent heavy snows in New England she became concerned about her roof caving in.
She emailed no fewer then four times with her concern. My degree is in engineering and I have extensive knowledge as to the construction materials used in my mothers house.
I repeatedly told her there was no need to concern herself about the roof. It was built to carry 3 feet of snow and I had just inspected the roof last summer and it was in excellent condition.
She ended up spending $350 to have someone remove the snow from her roof anyway because the person charging her $350 convinced her that the failure of her roof was imminent if she didn’t have the snow removed immediately.
My mother is a repsected journalist, if she can’t figure out whether she should take the advice of her son with an engineering or the advice of some guy with a snow shovel and a ladder then how can she possible determine what information is relevant in the climate debate?
She has two choices, seek out opposing views and present both sides or ‘trust someone’ and report that as fact.
It would be nice if we lived in a magical world where J-school students were requried to get Phd’s in other fields. We don’t live in such a world.
The place to find out about what is going on regarding anti-evolution activity, and such beliefs, is the National Center for Science Education — http://ncse.com/ How many people ‘don’t believe in evolution’ is a variable figure depending on how the survey is set up. The 40% Emmanual cites is to the low end. It can be as high as 60%.
Nationally, 20-25% are young earth creationists. Notwithstanding NewYorkJ (#19) and hopes for a Reformation, they will never accept evolution. Such Reformation, if it were to occur, would not come about because of science, so it’s still a matter that scientists can do nothing for. (Aside from the extent to which some are members of such churches.)
The additional 20-35% cover a range, which I’ll oversimplify to two groups. About 20% (most of the spread that depends on the wording of the question) has no problem with evolution — as long as you don’t suggest that humans evolved. They’re the “I’m not related to damn apes.” crowd, a comment heard often enough from young earth creationists as well. But, again, science has nothing to do with how they reached that position, and therefore can do nothing to change it.
The 0-15% would be those folks not already mentioned whose education omitted evolution entirely, they didn’t study that section, their teacher was bad, and so forth. They also account for many of the folks who think the earth orbits the sun in 1 day, or that the sun circles the earth. It might be that scientists could do something about this, so I’m open to suggestions. But I do think that this is more an issue for K-12 teachers rather than scientists. Scientist support of teachers is one of the major activities of the NCSE, and why I’m a member.
I saw an MIT panel discussion with both Lindzen and Emanuel. Emanuel – as is his want, apparantly – was invoking boogeymen. In this case tobacco. Lindzen said (paraphrasing, liberally) “I don’t know what tobacco has to do with climate or why Emanuel brings it up”. Similarly evolution.
I’m also reminded of something Briggs often says: way too many people are way too certain about way too many things (again paraphrasing liberally).
Genetic change and environmental selection can be observed in petri dishes, hospitals, and peppered moths. Extrapolating that to explain the mystery of us – we humans, so similar yet so profoundly different; unique on earth and, as far as we know, the universe – is no different than fundamentalists claiming the answer lies in a literal interpretation of the bible (or selected parts thereof). The fact is: we don’t know.
How individuals choose to fill that void is not something blithely judged. And I don’t know what this has to do with climate. Though I’ll (blithely) posit that both debates are more about about what we don’t know than what we do. Which is whey they keep going.
“It would be nice if we lived in a magical world where J-school students were requried to get Phd’s in other fields. We don’t live in such a world.”
We didn’t until recently.
Tom #25,
Pachauri was blindsided. How was he to know, on his feet on the sidewalk leading to some meetong or other, with no research, that this was the one (and as far as I know, so far, the only) question that actually led to an unambiguously erroneous statement of science that appears in AR4?
Tim Lambert Says:
Tom Fuller says: next time Rajendra Pachauri says that a scientist pointing out an error in AR whatever is practicing “˜voodoo science,’
Pachauri has never done that. It was a fabrication by the press.
LoL…did not take long to find a quote for more of the “fabrication by the press”
Fail…try again
“..The vice-chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) defended the scientific body’s review processes in Brussels yesterday (25 January), after it was forced to apologise last week for its mistake about the impact of global warming on Himalayan glaciers…
….Van Ypersele fended off the accusations. “He really does not have a life that you could envy,” he said, adding that Dr. Pachauri has dedicated his life to his work and was always travelling and lecturing.
Despite admitting that Pachauri’s dismissal of the Indian report questioning the melting rate of the Himalayan glaciers as voodoo science “was not ideal,” he said it was impossible for someone who gives speeches all the time to avoid making occasional mistakes….”
35, Robert Grumbine, I don’t agree with the numbers you give. Forty percent is not a low-end number. This is easy enough to verify. For an example, we can look at this page from the NCSE site:
For evolution, 45% of respondents indicated that they believed in it, 32% indicated that they don’t believe in it, and 22% indicated that they were not sure.
Estimates of how many Americans reject evolution have a very wide range. Forty percent is not on the high end, but it is also not a particularly low number. There are estimates as low as 15% and others as high as 70%. And that’s just from the ones I’ve seen.
The report that Pachauri called “voodoo science” was “Himalayan Glaciers: A State-of-Art Review of Glacial Studies, Glacial Retreat and Climate Change” by Vijay Raina. This report said nothing about the 2035 error in the IPPC Ar$ report. It didn’t reference the IPCC at all, but concluded that global warming was not causing Himalayan glaciers to retreat.
But it makes a much better story if Pachauri was dismissing reports of the 2035 error as “voodoo science”, so that’s the way the press has reported it. Unlike the IPCC, they tend not to be accountable for their errors.
This is the TV report where Pachauri uses the words “voodoo science” in the context of, and in the follow-up discussion regarding, the news report covering Raina’s report. The TV report DID speak of the paper “debunking” the IPCC’s “2035” claim.
The way you frame it, Tim, readers might be forgiven for believing that Pachauri’s comments were completely distinct from any discussion of the IPCC’s Himalayan glacier findings, but that would be incorrect because your careful framing is rather misleading.
Tom,
Good to see you the other night. My sense of things is to encourage Lambert and Tobis and others to attack the press. More cowbell. We should encourage them to make more strident claims about the press, more personal attacks on the press. All the commenters on their sites should do likewise. They’ve tried every other bone headed approach to persuade the public. Attacking the press, it’s almost nixonian. I just want to know when the guys in charge of the AGW message will resign so we can get the Jerry Ford of climate science.
I love it. “I will not sit down with the minister to discuss it.”
Tobis, Lambert, et al, what I find remarkable about the lack of journalistic rigor is the fact that Pachauri’s ties to TERI and their bid for a UN contract to study the melt of Himalayan glaceris was under process at the time he made those statements.
Well, what surprises me even more is that Pachauri is still in post.
The TV report did speak about the report debunking the “2035” claim. But Raina’s report did not mention the claim or anything at about the IPCC. I find it strange that you defend inaccurate reporting by pointing to more inaccurate reporting. You can produce a hundred reports in the media claiming that Raina’s report debunked the “2035” claim, but all you will be doing is providing more examples of inaccurate reporting. You don’t have to take the media’s word for it — the report is easily available online — why not look at it and see if it even mentions the IPCC?
Tobis, Lambert, et al, what I find remarkable about the lack of journalistic rigor is the fact that Pachauri’s ties to TERI and their bid for a UN contract to study the melt of Himalayan glaceris was under process at the time he made those statements. Well, what surprises me even more is that Pachauri is still in post.
Tim has AR4 errata been issued to correct the error?
I’m confused, i thought that error was in WGII? chapter 10? pg 493??
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/errataserrata-errata.html
Maybe the errata will get updated again.
The IPCC gave it much greater prominence than burying it among the errata.
Ahhh, I get it Tim. Unless the report specifically makes reference to the error in the IPCC document, it can’t debunk the IPCC claim, even though the information in the report does debunk the claim that’s made in the IPCC document, the claim isn’t debunked because it doesn’t explicitly state “the IPCC 2035 claim is debunked.”
And, even though Pachauri’s “voodoo science” comment was made during a TV segment, following a report-with-pictures which clearly made reference to the IPCC report, including the on-screen IPCC quote of the 2035 claim, you’re asserting that Pachauri’s “voodoo science” comment does not in any way relate to the debunking of the IPCC’s 2035 claim.
I think the succinct modern phrase goes something like: “WTF? o.O ROFLMFAO OMG haha”
Sorry Tim, that statement does not correct the record. It explains that a poor reference was used. Do you not understand the difference?
re 49.
Yes Simon that is what Tim is saying. Stunning isn’t it? As a believer in AGW I’m kinda stunned by the things people on my side say. The worst thing that patchy said was not “voodoo science” however, it was this: ” I will not sit down with the minister to discuss this.”
This tactic of demonizing ones opponents (both sides do it) naturally progresses to a state of people shouting at each other and then not talking. What happens after that is the application of force: political force or physical force.
“If you’re waiting for the press to persaude the public, you’re going to lose. The press doesn’t see that as its job.”
Why should it?
“Job” seems to me too loose a term as does “persuasion”unless qualified.
A journal may see campaigning as being its job and that is persuasion; but at what theshold should a duty to campaign for a particular externally imposed line become paramount?
I can see that there can be times when campaigning against a course of action that has been embarked upon could be judged as against the public interest. However that is a very high bar that is cleared perhaps once in a generation. Fighting an existential war is perhaps the clearest example of this. I did qualify this by requiring that the action be embarked upon. I can see no duty prior to irrevocable action.
The media in general have done an excellent job in promulgating the notion of AGW. I am not sure if the public are polled as to whethter they have heard about AGW, I can but believe that the concept is widely known. I do not beleive that the press have failed to inform. Informing is not their duty, it is their job; which is why I drew a distinction.
I am not sure that the necessary hurdle for a duty to persuade is cleared much before the point at which the public would demand it, or government insist upon it. A crisis that serious may also be the point at which the normal democratic process and certain liberties are reigned in.
It is my belief that there can be times when there is duty to support an ongoing course of action directed against an existential threat.
Persuasion is the job of campaigning organisations, be they political parties, journals or single isssue action groups. I can see no duty on them to tow a particular line.
However, if they think they have identified an existential threat then there may be a moral duty upon them to persuade. If they think they have identified the one singularly most important existential threat and have deduced the necessary course of action then that duty would seem to sanction revolutionary methods.
Now I do think that there are people who believe that AGW and their policies for mitigation do fall into that category but few seem to think that it calls for extraordinary action.
I say that we live in a time when it has never been more easy to launch a mass campaign for persuation. Raising money and establishing networks is but a click away. Alas it seems that this is some other bodies’ problem be they the press, politicians or the few grass-roots campaigners that do exist.
With the notable exception of James Hansen, who exactly amongst our releuctant persuaders from academe are prepared to do anything newsworthy.
Failure to persuade: is is not a scientific problem or a commitment problem?
Correction:
Failure to persuade: is it a science problem or a commitment problem?
@27 Tim Lambert: You may be correct in that Pachauri may not have uttered the word “voodoo”; but as the Times of India reported, he certainly did say the following:
Dr Pachauri, when contacted by TOI for a response to the discussion paper, said, “I’d like to find out the secret source of this divine intervention”¦ I don’t understand the logic of this”¦ I am puzzled where this magical science has come from”¦ This is something indefensible.”
When asked if the discussion paper could be taken into consideration in the on-going round of scientific review by IPCC, he said, “IPCC studies only peer-review science. Let someone publish the data in a decent credible publication. I am sure IPCC would then accept it, otherwise we can just throw it into the dustbin.”
“secret source … divine intervention … magical science that is indefensible” or “voodoo science”. Not too much difference in my books. Incidentally, that was in Nov. 2009. Between then and April 2010 he had a few changes of heart on non-peer reviewed literature, as well.
You can watch his mouth as his feet march right into it (and as he does a little “blame the media” pirouette along the way):
http://hro001.wordpress.com/2010/05/20/pachauri-defends-shoddy-shades-of-gray/
It is amusing to listen to Team scientists complain about “the media” having had a couple of decades of entirely uncritical and increasingly hysterical coverage from that media.
And it is also interesting to think that the scientists have such touching faith in media which has shredded its credibility reporting such lame threats as 20 meter sea level rises and the end of Arctic ice, not to mention their uncritical reproduction of the throughly bogus hockey stick graph.
Plus, not one of the MSM managed to get Climategate even close to right nor were they very interested in actually reporting on the details of the whitewash investigations of Climategate.
Why would anyone rely on MSM for climate science news? The journalists have been in the alarmist tank for years and are only now, as the wheels fall off the whole shakey scientific edifice of AGW quietly backing away from the massive bundle of uncertainties which was taken as Holy Writ all of three years ago.
Not, of course, that they are covering that story either. Largely because their editors have long since concluded that public has moved on from the sorts of sensationalist climate claims which so thoroughly discredited both the media and the scientists who made them.
[…] Kloor, blogging on the session at Collide-a-Scape, included a sobering assessment of the scientist-journalist tensions over global warming from Tom […]