Scientists Grapple With 'Completely Out of Hand' Attacks on Climate Science

[OKIsItJustMe]

http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2010/02/scientists-grapple-with-complete.html

Scientists Grapple With 'Completely Out of Hand' Attacks on Climate Science

by Eli Kintisch on February 19, 2010 8:09 PM

SAN DIEGO—A symposium organized here at the last minute by two of the world’s most prominent scientific organizations addressed recent attacks on an increasingly beleaguered climate science community. The panel met in the uncertain aftermath of the release of http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2009/11/climate-hack-sc.html">e-mails stolen from prominent climate scientists and critiques of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (http://www.ipcc.ch/">IPCC).

The panel of academics was convened by National Academy of Science President Ralph Cicerone, in conjunction with the American Association for the Advancement of Science (which publishes ScienceNOW), which is holding its annual meeting here. At a time when the biggest headlines on science have been over the flaws or legitimacy of climate science, said Cicerone, recent skirmishes over climate research “have really shaken the confidence of the public in the conduct of science .” He cited a number of recent polls, which show a “degradation” in the respect of the public for science in general.

Climate researchers have taken the biggest hit. They are feeling the brunt of what IPCC author Chris Field has described as a “feeding frenzy” since the November e-mail release. “The situation is completely out of hand,” said Texas A&M climate scientist Gerald North. “One guy e-mailed me to say I'm a ‘whore for the global warming crowd.’ ” His PowerPoint presentation included a slide quoting conservative talk show host http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/02/glenn-beck-climate-scientists-kill-themselves.php">Glenn Beck: “If the IPCC had been done by Japanese scientists, there's not enough knives on planet Earth for hara-kiri that should have occurred.” Said North, “Scientists cannot use the same tone and rhetorical style as commentators and bloggers.”

Scientists repeatedly admitted how ill-equipped they were for the political fight into which they’ve found themselves flung. “We are very immature in our public communications," North said. “We need some coaching.” Harvard University policy expert Sheila Jasanoff, whose presentation focused largely on philosophical issues related to science and society, allowed that scientists had made a “tactical error” in not responding explicitly in public to attacks.

...

[jody]

1. IMO what is a stake is the reputation of all who conduct scientific research and the process of

independent verification.

It's not just climate science but other areas such as drug research and genetic engineering to determine efficacy and safety.

IMO congress would be better if we had more scientists, mathematicians, etc. and fewer lawyers but for that to be effective we must maintain the rigorous process of verifying research results.

[kestrel91316]

2. I find it really sad that even DU has a HUGE and rabid anti-science contingent.

[OKIsItJustMe]

3. In my opinion, it's worse than that

Over the past several years, I have perceived a growing "anti-intellectualism" in this country.

This development scares me.

(Honestly) it reminds me of the "purges" that took place under Mao and Stalin.

[kestrel91316]

4. Yep. The RW would carry out a Chinese style "cultural revolution"

if they had half a chance
.

[OKIsItJustMe]

5. Try this Google search

phd "c student" site:georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov

See how our former president practically boasted about his lack of intellectual achievements.

[cprise]

6. St. Cyril's mob?

n/t

[caraher]

7. I'm beginning to think there needs to be a whole profession devoted to this

"this" being handling the interface between science and the public.

One reason the folks at Hadley CRU and other said what they did is that they simply cannot do their research jobs AND be responsive to every Tom, Dick and Harry who wants to tell them they're wrong. I think we need to have people whose job is something like the title Richard Dawkins holds (something about "public understanding of science") who can both uphold the public's right to the results of research and shield primary research scientists from excessive demands on their time and patience by members of the general public. Funding this should be integrated into major research programs, especially on politically touchy areas like climate.

[badgerpup]

8. "Natural" or "Anthrocentric"...

Either way, there's no reason that we shouldn't stop shitting in our own nest. :banghead:

There are better, cleaner, 'greener' ways to do things. :grr:
And it's only courtesy to leave a usable planet for those who might come after us.

I don't have a dog in that particular fight...no descendents...but plenty of OTHER folks do.

[tabatha]

9. Scientific research is filled with

going-back-to-the-drawing board moments.

Unscrupulous people will use that to smear all of science.

[NecklyTyler]

10. Sounds like the deniers are pushing a political agenda

They have found a small window in time due to a few errors by a few climate scientists, and the deniers are trying to extract as much political effect as the can. The window is closing. The errors will be corrected and the planet is still warming.

[wtmusic]

11. scientists had made a “tactical error”?

Sounds like a philosopher talking.

Responding explicitly in public would have no effect whatsoever, because the quality of the response is virtually irrelevant. The volume of the response is virtually everything.

A series of public service spots with leading scientists on TV day, after day, after day, might accomplish the most.

[OKIsItJustMe]

12. I don't know if that would help either

A co-worker explained that he had opposed pollution "since before the Indian cried," but that he didn't care for "all of the doom and gloom." He didn't think that was appropriate for scientists.

I responded that scientists had been matter-of-factly warning us for decades now, and as a society we had been ignoring them... at what point, I asked, would it be appropriate for them to resort to "doom and gloom?" (after it was too late for us to do anything?)

[wtmusic]

13. It needs to be presented in a slick, newsroom fashion

for those who require that for it to seem credible. In small bites or factoids, and in a positive light - "here's what you can do". All the time.

[OKIsItJustMe]

14. That's what I thought.

Give them a continual drum beat. I really liked NPR's climate series for that. For a whole year, every day, another story on climate change.

However, I've come to think differently. So long as the folks at FOX "News" and elsewhere are saying, "These scientists are all lying to you. They're just in it for the money." A large number of people will believe them, and we just can't afford to have that many people working against us.

[wtmusic]

15. There's reallly no way to stop them.

As you know the petroleum industry and virtually unlimited $$ are behind this. Gotta fight fire with fire.

[OKIsItJustMe]

17. I fear we don't have time to convince the "skeptics."

I'm also becoming convinced that the "ghost filibuster" is going to kill us.

http://www.loe.org/shows/segments.htm?programID=10-P13-00008&segmentID=2

Ghost Filibuster Haunts Climate Action

Air Date: Week of February 19, 2010

...

YOUNG: What is this filibuster, as it is now, this supermajority requirement for everything – what does that mean for legislation on climate change?

GEOGHEGAN: It means we aren't going to have any. As long as there's a supermajority rule, and you know, the 40 Senators from the 20 smallest states in this country represent a population base of 11 percent. Potentially, you could have a measure designed to save the planet that is really stopped by 11 percent of the population of the country.

And there is a real serious question whether states like Montana, Utah, North Dakota, South Dakota ought to have a veto on things that are going to affect people in the sub-Sahara, in South America, in Europe. It would be an odd fate for planet Earth to go down the drain because developers in Montana don't particularly like CO2 emission legislation.

...

GEOGHEGAN: Well, as Hamilton in Federalist No. 75 said, the history of every political establishment in which the supermajority has prevailed has a history of impotence, perplexity, and disorder. We can't have government govern unless we have a government capable of acting based on majority rule. And it's not just climate change. I can't think of an environmental issue where the filibuster rule isn't toxic to what environmental groups want to achieve.

...

[tinrobot]

16. Don't have the scientists talk...

Most scientists know how to crunch numbers and draw conclusions.... not be media moguls.

Someone needs to hire a badass PR firm that takes the bull by the horns and gets the facts out in a way people can understand, but more importantly, in a way that makes them take action. Al Gore tried it with his "we" campaign last year, but it was way too warm and fuzzy. We need to take a cue from the right and be a LOT stronger.

Of course, who's going to pony up a few hundred million to make this happen?

[wtmusic]

18. I see your point

George Soros? Bill Gates? :shrug:

[Viking12]

19. It really doesn't matter what the scientitsts say

The RW deniers will completely distort what they said. Take the recent Phil Jones BBC interview, for instance. When that isn't enough they'll fabricate quotes out of thin air. Take the recent John Houghton "scandal", for instance. We're staring into the face of people that have absolutely no sense of decency, honor, or respect for the truth.

[tinrobot]

20. Can they sue for libel?

[OKIsItJustMe]

21. They certainly should be able to

The question is, "Would that help?"

[wtmusic]

22. It would have to be injurious to the scientist's reputation

and since 1964 the statements would have to show actual malice. I think there was a Supreme Court decision.

Unfortunately what matters is not what's coming out of the loudspeaker, but how loud it is.