......

[bluewave]

......

[nflwxman]

http://www.eenews.net/stories/1059966968

 

 

Jon Krosnick has seen the frustration etched into the faces of climate scientists.

For 15 years, Krosnick has charted the rising public belief in global warming. Yet, as the field's implications became clearer, action has remained elusive. Science seemed to hit the limits of its influence. It is a result that has prompted some researchers to cross their world's no man's land -- from advice to activism.

As Krosnick has watched climate scientists call for government action, he began pondering a recent small dip in the public's belief. And he wondered: Could researchers' move into the political world be undermining their scientific message?

 

"What if a message involves two different topics, one trustworthy and one not trustworthy?" said Krosnick, a communication and psychology professor at Stanford University. "Can the general public detect crossing that line?"

His results, not yet published, would seem to say they can.

Using a national survey, Krosnick has found that, among low-income and low-education respondents, climate scientists suffered damage to their trustworthiness and credibility when they veered from describing science into calling viewers to ask the government to halt global warming. And not only did trust in the messenger fall -- even the viewers' belief in the reality of human-caused warming dropped steeply.

It is a warning that, even as the frustration of inaction mounts and the politicization of climate science deepens, researchers must be careful in getting off the political sidelines.

"The advice that comes out of this work is that all of us, when we claim to have expertise and offer opinions on matters [in the world], need to be guarded about how far we're willing to go," Krosnick said. Speculation, he added, "could compromise everything."

I buy this 100%.  The truth is, Americans often will judge civil activists due to their loud outspokenness.  Although climate action seems elusive, the message would be better received if the scientists studying it are not put into handcuffs once a year.  I think society has a view of scientists as being smart, quiet, and humble.  Anyone who goes against grain, for better or worse, often has their message distorted in the public arena.

[Cory]

I buy this 100%.  The truth is, Americans often will judge civil activists due to their loud outspokenness.  Although climate action seems elusive, the message would be better received if the scientists studying it are not put into handcuffs once a year.  I think society has a view of scientists as being smart, quiet, and humble.  Anyone who goes against grain, for better or worse, often has their message distorted in the public arena.

 

Agree. It drives me crazy to see climate scientists (Mike Mann is probably one of the worst) making snide remarks and calling people names in public. IMO, scientists should investigate and present their findings, and let other people sort out what to do with it. Scientists with doctorate degrees having childish meltdowns on Twitter is not the best publicity for science as a whole. 

[nflwxman]

Agree. It drives me crazy to see climate scientists (Mike Mann is probably one of the worst) making snide remarks and calling people names in public. IMO, scientists should investigate and present their findings, and let other people sort out what to do with it. Scientists with doctorate degrees having childish meltdowns on Twitter is not the best publicity for science as a whole.

To clarify, I completely understand their frustration. But progress is not up to a small group of scientists. If they stay the course and keep producing convincing science, society will eventually follow (I hope).

[Cory]

To clarify, I completely understand their frustration. But progress is not up to a small group of scientists. If they stay the course and keep producing convincing science, society will eventually follow (I hope).

 

Maybe. But if they keep talking to people like they're stupid, the whole "unbiased, humble scientist" thing goes out the window and people dig their heels in deeper (and neutral people are probably steered away from the message).

 

"Denier" is like calling someone a doodyhead. That prominent scientists do so is disappointing. I refuse to take such people seriously, and I have a feeling I'm not alone. It's difficult to accept someone's scientific findings when they behave like a 12 year old.  

[f2tornado]

Agree. It drives me crazy to see climate scientists (Mike Mann is probably one of the worst) making snide remarks and calling people names in public. IMO, scientists should investigate and present their findings, and let other people sort out what to do with it. Scientists with doctorate degrees having childish meltdowns on Twitter is not the best publicity for science as a whole. 

 

I agree, and the worst part is the focus on the actual science gets lost. One of my former Nebraska professors has been sharing some of the climate change memes on Facebook which does nothing to advance bona fide discussion. They come across as glossy elitism and only serve to trivialize or outright dismiss skepics, many of which do have valuable insight. The most recent one was "I'm not a climate scientist but I do play one on the blogosphere...". I assume that one was aimed at Watts but was easy pickings for trolling and I replied with, "sounds like John Cook". It's almost like the debate has become a game of inflated egos immersed in a group think tank. Usually mud slinging and name calling is done by the side losing the game, or in this case argument. The irony is even the most skeptical scientists acknowledge some AGW taking place. It's essentially a battle of the delta(little_warmer) versus delta(a_lot_warmer) which begs the question, why the pissing contest? This does make me, and certainly others, ponder if some really do have an ideological agenda. It doesn't help the AGW advocacy cause to have Al Gore as the defacto face of the franchise where he's been debunked time and again, even by real climate scientists. People are naturally skeptical of politicians and Gore has gotten the climate change podium in the press more than anyone else. Of course, average joe scientist isn't gonna make too many headlines. Climate scientists do need to find a better way to communicate their ideas or concerns without hype and hyperbole in a way the general public can understand as those folks are not gonna read or understand journal articles, nor are most likely to visit the various blogs.

[Cory]

I agree, and the worst part is the focus on the actual science gets lost. One of my former Nebraska professors has been sharing some of the climate change memes on Facebook which does nothing to advance bona fide discussion. They come across as glossy elitism and only serve to trivialize or outright dismiss skepics, many of which do have valuable insight. The most recent one was "I'm not a climate scientist but I do play one on the blogosphere...". I assume that one was aimed at Watts but was easy pickings for trolling and I replied with, "sounds like John Cook". It's almost like the debate has become a game of inflated egos immersed in a group think tank. Usually mud slinging and name calling is done by the side losing the game, or in this case argument. The irony is even the most skeptical scientists acknowledge some AGW taking place. It's essentially a battle of the delta(little_warmer) versus delta(a_lot_warmer) which begs the question, why the pissing contest? This does make me, and certainly others, ponder if some really do have an ideological agenda. It doesn't help the AGW advocacy cause to have Al Gore as the defacto face of the franchise where he's been debunked time and again, even by real climate scientists. People are naturally skeptical of politicians and Gore has gotten the climate change podium in the press more than anyone else. Of course, average joe scientist isn't gonna make too many headlines. Climate scientists do need to find a better way to communicate their ideas or concerns without hype and hyperbole in a way the general public can understand as those folks are not gonna read or understand journal articles, nor are most likely to visit the various blogs.

 

There's also a bad habit of attributing claims to science when science doesn't necessarily back them up. Science may agree that humans are warming the climate, but it doesn't necessarily agree that <insert whatever horrible thing comes to mind> will happen because of it. Another problem is that the media is really really sh*tty at reporting on science. A modeling study suggests ________ could happen, and the media slaps a scary headline on it, selectively quotes a scientist, and reports it like it's inevitable. Later another modeling study downplays it and reporters set it up as a scientist vs scientist with the bad scenario still being likely in the end.

 

The message is confusing and leads people to think that climate scientists couldn't find their own asses with both hands and a flashlight (medical science is already notorious for giving that impression).

[Jonger]

http://www.eenews.net/stories/1059966968

 

 

Jon Krosnick has seen the frustration etched into the faces of climate scientists.

For 15 years, Krosnick has charted the rising public belief in global warming. Yet, as the field's implications became clearer, action has remained elusive. Science seemed to hit the limits of its influence. It is a result that has prompted some researchers to cross their world's no man's land -- from advice to activism.

As Krosnick has watched climate scientists call for government action, he began pondering a recent small dip in the public's belief. And he wondered: Could researchers' move into the political world be undermining their scientific message?

 

"What if a message involves two different topics, one trustworthy and one not trustworthy?" said Krosnick, a communication and psychology professor at Stanford University. "Can the general public detect crossing that line?"

His results, not yet published, would seem to say they can.

Using a national survey, Krosnick has found that, among low-income and low-education respondents, climate scientists suffered damage to their trustworthiness and credibility when they veered from describing science into calling viewers to ask the government to halt global warming. And not only did trust in the messenger fall -- even the viewers' belief in the reality of human-caused warming dropped steeply.

It is a warning that, even as the frustration of inaction mounts and the politicization of climate science deepens, researchers must be careful in getting off the political sidelines.

"The advice that comes out of this work is that all of us, when we claim to have expertise and offer opinions on matters [in the world], need to be guarded about how far we're willing to go," Krosnick said. Speculation, he added, "could compromise everything."

 

There is the root of the problem. There are scientists who are worried about future climate change and believe they have a responsibility in airing that message and then you have the secondary cause advocate, they use climate change as a catalyst to change a political system, their primary interest. The later group has blurred the lines and has caused immense damage to the true scientists.

[f2tornado]

There is the root of the problem. There are scientists who are worried about future climate change and believe they have a responsibility in airing that message and then you have the secondary cause advocate, they use climate change as a catalyst to change a political system, their primary interest. The later group has blurred the lines and has caused immense damage to the true scientists.

 

Very well stated. And I stress again, people are rightfully leery and suspicious of politics. It's what the Founding Fathers desired. I also agree with Cory. That said, some of these scientists on either side of the spectrum do a piss poor job comminicating the science to the media, be it intentional or out of arrogance. One example is only citing the high or low end of a modelled temperature estimate. The politicians themselves are culpable. They dictate the rules of interstate commerce and therefore a lot of electicity transmission. They could have easily proposed green legislation not in the form of tax increases but I digress.

[TerryM]

Not a problem here in Canada. Our VERY conservative government simply refuses to allow our climate scientists to discuss the matter. It seem that here at least the government/oil producers are taking extreme measures to ensure that scientists don't speak out.

Terry

[f2tornado]

I was not aware of that, Terry. I just read a couple articles that corroborate what you said though Environment Canada Deputy Minister for Science and Technology Brian T. Gray suggests otherwise. I suppose he could be playing a puppet role to save his position. http://www.ec.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=FFE36B6D-1&news=1A45AA0A-087E-4826-97C4-8AEED4358711 I did find this quote amusing, "Environment Canada is committed to sharing information with all Canadians about what’s happening in the environment around them." Well, they certainly have a piss-poor doppler radar display. Is there a reason why they don't offer the NWS equivalent? Selling it to the highest bidder or just lacking resources?