On science issues, more "pure science" and less spinning is what's needed
In a post titled On issues like global warming and evolution, scientists need to speak up , Chris Mooney depicts the debate on carbon dioxide / climate change as one between "mainstream researchers and skeptics."
IPBiz notes that if this were all there were to the matter, the "mainstream" researchers would not have to conspire to block acceptance of "skeptic" papers or make plans to embargo journals utilized by the skeptics. The skeptics would be irrelevant.
Mooney writes:
In other words, what's needed is less "pure science" on its own -- although of course scientists must continue to speak in scientifically accurate terms -- and more engagement with the concerns of nonscientific audiences. In response to that argument, many researchers will say: "Why target us? We're the good guys. And if we become more media savvy, we'll risk our credibility."
There is only one answer to this objection: "Look all around you -- at Climategate, at the unending evolution wars -- and ask, are your efforts working?" The answer, surely, is no.
The precise ways in which scientists should change their communication strategies vary from issue to issue, but there are some common themes. Reticence is never a good thing, especially on a politically fraught topic such as global warming -- it just cedes the debate to the other side. "If we come out of this with a more organized way of dealing with these attacks in the future, then it will have done some good," Mann said of Climategate.
On other topics, including evolution, scientists must recognize that more than scientific matters are at stake, and either address the moral and ethical issues themselves, or pair with those who can (in the case of evolution, religious leaders and scientists such as Giberson and National Institutes of Health chief Francis Collins, who in 2006 wrote a book called "The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief").
Of -- There is only one answer to this objection: "Look all around you -- at Climategate --, the problem with ClimateGate was the presence of emails indicating manipulation through non-scientific approaches.
Of --"If we come out of this with a more organized way of dealing with these attacks in the future, then it will have done some good," Mann said of Climategate. --, the people guilty of the questionable approaches were the East Anglia/Penn State folks. The "attacks" amounted to a disclosure of these questionable approaches.
Mooney's analysis is straight out of Alice in Wonderland.
One reader wrote:
The CO2 stuff is overblown in most models. Since most C that is turned into emitted CO2 was SOLD and therefore recorded, the amount is determined at about 2 orders of magnitude accuracy of anything else. (see the "If I have a 'really good' hammer, everything looks like a nail" effect) The "ocean CO2" is so complicated by buffering, organic and inorganic sources/sinks that most models use the "guess half the effect and double it" algorithm.
H2O is the real 500 pound Greenhouse gorilla. It is best decribed as "the weather." Gotten any forcasts that are worth a Trillion dollars?
**See also
U of I reinstates Marie Bulgin and finds no evidence of 'scientific misconduct' in wild sheep controversy including
"In June 2009, news media reported concerns raised by several groups and individuals, including Western Watersheds Project and representatives of the Nez Perce Tribe, about comments Marie Bulgin made in her testimony before the Idaho legislature during the 2009 session and in her written statements in federal litigation relating to transmission of disease between bighorn sheep and domestic sheep. The university took these reports and concerns seriously and launched a thorough assessment of the facts surrounding her comments."
AND
Bulgin will operate under an approved conflict management plan that will address, among other things, her private activities as an advocate for the sheep industry. Conflict management plans are part of the university's Faculty and Staff Handbook (FSH 6240, D-1).
IPBiz notes that if this were all there were to the matter, the "mainstream" researchers would not have to conspire to block acceptance of "skeptic" papers or make plans to embargo journals utilized by the skeptics. The skeptics would be irrelevant.
Mooney writes:
In other words, what's needed is less "pure science" on its own -- although of course scientists must continue to speak in scientifically accurate terms -- and more engagement with the concerns of nonscientific audiences. In response to that argument, many researchers will say: "Why target us? We're the good guys. And if we become more media savvy, we'll risk our credibility."
There is only one answer to this objection: "Look all around you -- at Climategate, at the unending evolution wars -- and ask, are your efforts working?" The answer, surely, is no.
The precise ways in which scientists should change their communication strategies vary from issue to issue, but there are some common themes. Reticence is never a good thing, especially on a politically fraught topic such as global warming -- it just cedes the debate to the other side. "If we come out of this with a more organized way of dealing with these attacks in the future, then it will have done some good," Mann said of Climategate.
On other topics, including evolution, scientists must recognize that more than scientific matters are at stake, and either address the moral and ethical issues themselves, or pair with those who can (in the case of evolution, religious leaders and scientists such as Giberson and National Institutes of Health chief Francis Collins, who in 2006 wrote a book called "The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief").
Of -- There is only one answer to this objection: "Look all around you -- at Climategate --, the problem with ClimateGate was the presence of emails indicating manipulation through non-scientific approaches.
Of --"If we come out of this with a more organized way of dealing with these attacks in the future, then it will have done some good," Mann said of Climategate. --, the people guilty of the questionable approaches were the East Anglia/Penn State folks. The "attacks" amounted to a disclosure of these questionable approaches.
Mooney's analysis is straight out of Alice in Wonderland.
One reader wrote:
The CO2 stuff is overblown in most models. Since most C that is turned into emitted CO2 was SOLD and therefore recorded, the amount is determined at about 2 orders of magnitude accuracy of anything else. (see the "If I have a 'really good' hammer, everything looks like a nail" effect) The "ocean CO2" is so complicated by buffering, organic and inorganic sources/sinks that most models use the "guess half the effect and double it" algorithm.
H2O is the real 500 pound Greenhouse gorilla. It is best decribed as "the weather." Gotten any forcasts that are worth a Trillion dollars?
**See also
U of I reinstates Marie Bulgin and finds no evidence of 'scientific misconduct' in wild sheep controversy including
"In June 2009, news media reported concerns raised by several groups and individuals, including Western Watersheds Project and representatives of the Nez Perce Tribe, about comments Marie Bulgin made in her testimony before the Idaho legislature during the 2009 session and in her written statements in federal litigation relating to transmission of disease between bighorn sheep and domestic sheep. The university took these reports and concerns seriously and launched a thorough assessment of the facts surrounding her comments."
AND
Bulgin will operate under an approved conflict management plan that will address, among other things, her private activities as an advocate for the sheep industry. Conflict management plans are part of the university's Faculty and Staff Handbook (FSH 6240, D-1).
posted by Lawrence B. Ebert at 12:12 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home