- #36
mheslep
Gold Member
- 364
- 729
You're right.Bored Wombat said:Well it wouldn't be immediately effective, but useless is a bit strong.
You're right.Bored Wombat said:Well it wouldn't be immediately effective, but useless is a bit strong.
mheslep said:You're right.
mheslep said:This graph also illustrates, BTW, why CO2 emissions reductions enforced on only the EU and the US while allowing China and India to opt out would be useless.
Xezlec said:1. I keep hearing this notion everywhere that the one right course of action is adaptation to global warming rather than any reduction in fossil fuel consumption. I've been trying to understand it. Don't forever-increasing CO2 emissions most likely mean forever-increasing temperature? How can we adapt to a forever-increasing temperature? Is that even possible?
sylas said:There's a hard limit on CO2 emissions, and that is the availability of fuels.
Xezlec said:Vanesch, et al.:
I would genuinely love to be on your side and not worry about the whole climate change thing, but there are some questions I would need to find convincing answers to first. This list is not meant as a critique; I honestly wonder what the right thing to do is, and am open to persuasion. (etc)
Xezlec said:Vanesch, et al.:
I would genuinely love to be on your side and not worry about the whole climate change thing, but there are some questions I would need to find convincing answers to first. This list is not meant as a critique; I honestly wonder what the right thing to do is, and am open to persuasion.
1. I keep hearing this notion everywhere that the one right course of action is adaptation to global warming rather than any reduction in fossil fuel consumption. I've been trying to understand it. Don't forever-increasing CO2 emissions most likely mean forever-increasing temperature? How can we adapt to a forever-increasing temperature? Is that even possible?
2. I know that so far, industrialized nations have failed to reduce emissions significantly, and (though I'm not well-versed enough to actually know) I could certainly be persuaded that significant reductions could be an enormous economic strain, maybe even sufficient to set our standard of living back 100 years or more. But when I envision massive shifts of climate and productivity from one region to another, and the inevitable conflicts over resources that come along with it, plus possible mass extinctions due to such a rapid climate shift being too much for most species to adapt to, and unknown wider effects due to that (don't "pest" species tend to be favored by rapid changes in environment?), I guess I don't see why it would necessarily be obvious that the possible-but-debatable economic armageddon wrought by switching to alternative energy rivals the possible-but-debatable environmental armageddon that could result (even with some adaptation) from not doing so. In the context of that kind of uncertainty, what makes you confident in favoring the option you favor?
3. Do you believe that "advertising" a position to the public is wrong? That science should just state the facts and leave the decision-making to the decision-makers? If so, then is it OK for science to at least "advertise" those facts, so long as they aren't advocating a course of action?
History would seem to show that the public (and, to a lesser extent, leaders) are not going to carefully and scientifically analyze a scientific position. Rather, they give science relatively little weight in deciding their beliefs and courses of action. I submit that people believe what is sold to them, and when two people are trying to sell them competing ideas, then being right just gives one of them a slight statistical advantage in persuasiveness. If that's the case, then isn't science without a hard-sell incapable of reaching the public or decision-makers at all?
The upshot of that is, if (as I suggest) it is OK to use persuasion in favor of a position regarding a statement of fact, then wouldn't the potential statement of fact "course of action A results in a more tolerable (by some metric) situation than course of action B" also be OK to use persuasion for? Sorry if that's convoluted, but it's the best way I can explain what I keep thinking when I hear this position.
vanesch said:I'm not saying that we "shouldn't worry". I'm just saying that it is my opinion that scientists do a disservice to science by trying to present their results in a way which is "non-neutral", as I pointed out to this brochure, which tries to emphasize, by using communication techniques, the gravity of climate change.
If people, and politicians, need to take decisions, they need "information" and not "communication". There's no point in using communication techniques that try to convey a message of "melting Greenland" faster than it actually melts. There's no point in representing it as melting less than it actually does as one can find on some sceptics blogs either. The message should simply be: to the best of our knowledge, Greenland will be ice-free by (say) 2070, or 2140, or...
It is then up to politicians and people to determine whether or not that's a sufficiently serious problem to do something about. It's not up to the scientist to go shouting "hell, people, look, Greenland's melting FAST" (suggesting: DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT, DAMNIT!).
Not that scientists are not human beings and may not have political convictions - the reason is that if they do so, they put themselves on the same level as opponents of science, and hence they lose their credibility as a scientist.
vanesch said:The problem is that if you, as a scientist, try to persuade the public that the problem you're dealing with is terrible (much more terrible than the actual data show you), then chances are that you induce people in wrong decision making, by giving too much weight to what you are saying, for the moment. And if later on, it turns out that you've been exaggerating, even the slightest bit, that NOBODY WILL TAKE YOU SERIOUSLY ANYMORE, even if this time, you come with a genuinely serious problem, because you've been crying wolf before. And if science is not to be trusted, then who is ? Any crank that comes up with any idea ?
In other words, by "putting (more than your actual) weight into the balance as a scientist", you are risking the whole credibility of science in the future.
Bored Wombat said:I disagree with that.
I think the communication of science is science to the public is a different job than communicating it in the scientific literature, and is not less valuable.
For the former, you need to use common and often emotive language. For the latter you need to use equations.
I don't think anyone is saying that the problem is worse than the data shows.
But given that about 97% of research climatologists think that human activity is affecting climate and only about 80% of the public, then there is an information gap that should be addressed.
vanesch said:I'm horrified by that thought. It is science denying its fundamental principles.
vanesch said:Then why does the inset of the ice melting on Greenland show the smallest and the largest outliers of the general trend instead of picking two images that lie close to the trend line ?
No. But if a scientist is concerned. (And about two thirds of the ecologists one speaks to can talk of devastation in their object of study), then they should say: "I'm concerned". And if they think that 75% of all ecological communities are under immediate threat of population extinction they should say: "You should be concerned!"vanesch said:But do you think the best way to get people accept a scientific viewpoint is by exaggerating the message ?
No. But argument by analogy is like a leaky screwdriver.vanesch said:Imagine I wanted to promote the scientific idea that humans evolved from ape-like ancestors who didn't walk straight up. Would it be productive to convince those that have a hard time accepting that by exaggerating the message, and by showing pictures that suggest that humans actually evolved from apes that walked on their hands only, and slide in images of some chimp walking on his hands with his legs in the air ?
vanesch said:Do you think that renders the science more credible ?
Bored Wombat said:Not unless you think that science isn't the publicisation of science too. Climate science is the prime example where the public's general ignorance of science is becoming dangerous.
But scientists are (almost) always emotional about the object of their studies. It's fine for that to come out in the publicisation of it. That way it's less boring. And who among us (except perhaps the aspies) was not moved by Sagan or Feynman?
To show the range. As long as it is clear what the inset shows, it's good.
No. But if a scientist is concerned. (And about two thirds of the ecologists one speaks to can talk of devastation in their object of study), then they should say: "I'm concerned". And if they think that 75% of all ecological communities are under immediate threat of population extinction they should say: "You should be concerned!"
No. But no one is leading climate science with photos of a chimp walking on their hands. And if they did, it wouldn't say anything about climate science.
vanesch said:I don't know if it is especially dangerous in this case, but for sure (and that's my point) scientists have a big responsibility in rendering the science less credible.
Then you need to be educated about the science. Because we're losing forever a massively powerful resource, and you should understand that if you're going to take up good space on the planet.vanesch said:Why ? What if I don't care what happens to 75% of all ecological communities ?
Because humans are superstitious and believe wrong things. And yet we supply them with a technological society, full of technology they don't understand. And the mix of power and ignorance is dangerous.vanesch said:What's so "scientific" about it ? What is important is that people are *informed* (in as much as they care) about that.
It will retard forever your capacity for many avenues of medical research and biochemical research. And it may destroy keystone nutritional biological processes that kicks of other extinctions. Possibly our own.vanesch said:What is also important is that one explains to them what it implies for their day-to-day life. If the Amazon forest disappears, how will that affect my day-to-day life ?
No, but if we lose key species, perhaps obviously honey bees, it will make getting enough of certain vitamins difficult and expensive. And most will not be as obvious as honey bees. They will be lower on the food chain and camouflaged in out ignorance of ecological systems.vanesch said:Will I not be able to eat Kiwis any more, and do I find it important to be able to eat kiwis ?
Possibly. Especially if your route to your work is within a few metres of the high tide mark at any point.vanesch said:Will it affect the way I go to my work place ?
Certainly. It will mean there will be food riots and unrest in many parts of the world, so you'll have to take a gun or avoid them.vanesch said:The way I go on a holiday ?
I think it's okay to assume that people will read the caption.vanesch said:The chimp walking on its hands is the equivalent of the insets of the Greenland ice plot: it is a suggestive picture of a larger effect than has been observed.
The picture can be a true picture of a circus chimp that has learned to walk on its hands, so it is not "wrong". But it suggests something that is not correct.
vanesch said:The chimp walking on its hands is the equivalent of the insets of the Greenland ice plot: it is a suggestive picture of a larger effect than has been observed.
The picture can be a true picture of a circus chimp that has learned to walk on its hands, so it is not "wrong". But it suggests something that is not correct.
You work out a price of the incremental destruction of the commons.sylas said:How do you sort out rights and freedoms in that case. I don't know; this gets beyond only science.
Bored Wombat said:You work out a price of the incremental destruction of the commons.
sylas said:You can estimate that empirically (that is, scientifically); but science won't tell you the right way to decide how rights and freedoms apply to use of the commons.
You might use scientific methods to look at likely consequences of different policies; but the consequences and costs are not universal. Who is to say, for example, that a cost deferred to a future generation is to be avoided? Science might be able to tell you what the consequences of your actions are upon someone else, or the consequences of one society's conventions upon the resources available to another. It's politics and ethics and law -- all subjective human choices -- that determines whether you are constrained to consider that.
Cheers -- sylas
sylas said:I don't see the problem here. The insets seem to me to be intended to show the range of melts; the minimum and maximum. I don't think that's incorrect or even misdirection. That's also relevant information.
As for being "dry", I would much rather scientists don't try to remain dry and dispassionate.
There's been a lot of discussion in recent years, in all kinds of contexts, for how science is communicated. There's a problem with basic science understanding in the general population, not just on climate but in all kinds of areas, and ironically the USA is particularly bad by comparison with many other nations. And (as has been pointed out!) scientists are in competition with other voices that understand and use every PR trick they can think of. The great strength of science, in my view, is that it is real.
Good science communication has to be accurate, but it also has to engage and motivate. You won't satisfy everyone, but personally I think this report is a step in the right direction. It is very clear, very punchy, with nicely set out major points, well referenced, accurate, and engaging many popular confusions and misconceptions directly. It gets away from "climate models", which lots of people find confusing and don't understand, and deals much more in the observables.
And scientists are not only scientists, they are citizens as well, and may freely decide to engage in political and social spheres.
sylas said:You can estimate that empirically (that is, scientifically); but science won't tell you the right way to decide how rights and freedoms apply to use of the commons.
Bored Wombat said:Once you've got the price, you put that price on the behaviour that causes the damage, and the market works out whether Johnny Public wants to do it when there's no "externalities" - a price to someone else that he's not paying.
In this case it would come out as a carbon tax on Johnny's fuel. I don't have the figures, but a lot of Johnnies would reconsider an SUV if filling up cost $500 or $1000. And some wouldn't. Both are good, if the money is spent relocating or otherwise conserving ecological resources.
Many say the problem is worse than the data shows, and on a daily basis. http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article2633838.ece"'s pop magazine comments, etc.Bored Wombat said:[...]
I don't think anyone is saying that the problem is worse than the data shows. (And if they are I agree that this is ethically as well as morally wrong)...
Rather we'll run out of cheap oil. We need not run out of coal or shale oil even in the next century.vanesch said:As others said, we'll run out of fossil fuels in any case about this century or the next, ...
mheslep said:Many say the problem is worse than the data shows, and on a daily basis. http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article2633838.ece"'s pop magazine comments, etc.
I'm sure Hansen writing in the literature is right about many things, though I don't know about humans and more ice ages. I was addressing comments in the popular press, which we seem to be on at the moment (public sentiment on AGW), where Hansen's clearly made some statements predicting conditions "worse than the data shows."Bored Wombat said:But Hansen is right (and the only scientist of the two). There won't be another ice age as long as human civilisation lasts on earth.
mheslep said:I'm sure Hansen writing in the literature is right about many things, though I don't know about humans and more ice ages. I was addressing comments in the popular press, which we seem to be on at the moment (public sentiment on AGW), where Hansen's clearly made some statements predicting conditions "worse than the data shows."
vanesch said:- scientist: you know that you're killing the rain forests with your SUV ?
- citizen: no, I didn't, am I ?
- scientist: yes you are
- citizen: ah, well, good to know. Have a nice day.
- scientist: but shouldn't you stop driving that SUV then ?
- citizen: nope, I like it too much.
- scientist: but the rain forest ?
- citizen: I weighted the pro and contra, and I prefer my SUV over the rain forest. Have a nice day.
vanesch said:Just to add to this: the problem climate science is dealing with with the public, is a problem of credibility, not a problem of "gravity of its predictions". The communication effort seems to try to emphasize the gravity, while that's very counter-productive on the side of the credibility.
Xezlec said:It's hard to engage people without getting them emotionally involved somehow, is what I'm saying, and they aren't going to just voluntarily put in the mental energy to try to understand what you're saying. You have to coerce them to, and that means pulling them in through clever use of emotion.
I mean look, you talk about presenting the facts in an unbiased way, as though the public will just accept that, as though they are keeping score of who's right more often. But really, aren't the politicians manipulating people using far more powerful tools of persuasion than the minor detail of being right and the even more minor detail of being able to back it up with complicated evidence? It's hard for me to see how science will be anything other than ignored when put up against talented persuasive speakers.
More than half of Americans believe that evolution is a myth. Is this because scientists somehow destroyed their own credibility, or is it because the persuasive power of religion is more effective at convincing people of things than naked rational argument could ever hope to be?
Xezlec said:- scientist: you know that you're killing the rain forests with your SUV ?
- citizen: ur gay.
vanesch said:The "conversation" I propose is rather:
- scientist: have a nice day. I'll spend my time elsewhere. Not worth my attention.
vanesch said:But that's my point, that's eventually a politician's job, but not a scientist's job.
A scientist shouldn't care what the public believes or not, and a scientist shouldn't want to coerce them into whatever action (apart from funding his research).
A scientist should give information to the public (in as much as the public is interested), might advise politicians (if they ask for it), and that's it, in my eyes.
If science is ignored that shouldn't affect the scientist (as long as he gets his funding). He might eventually get his kick out of the pleasure when disaster strikes, to be able to show publications where he could say: "we had foreseen it, but politicians weren't interested - not my responsibility, but yours".
The other way around, "crying wolf" and having maybe to admit, one day, that one was somehow wrong on the gravity of the issue, will be very very damaging to the credibility of science.
Of course. So there's no point trying to convince people who even believe the Earth is 6000 years old. You better don't talk to these people, rather than expose yourself to impossible debate.
If on top of that, you will introduce emotional argumentation TOO, you've lost all distinction from your opponent.
If the basics of scientific argumentation are not accepted,
then, as a scientist, you cannot say anything, and you better don't say anything rather than entering the game of rhetoric, because then you lower yourself to the same standards as those that convinced the creationist in the first place. Yes, you can try to convince him, but by the same time, you've sold your soul, as you've rendered "valid" any non-scientific reasoning on the same level as a scientific one because you're using it yourself.
But as a scientist, you're killing what sets apart science, in the process.
Xezlec said:It's a politician's job to convince people that science is worth listening to? No, that's not right, it's a politician's job to get elected and stay there. They tell people whatever they think will get people to vote for them. Why would science be useful in that? People don't even *like* science.
Well, the "action" in question was listening to what you have to say, so since that's the thing that (ultimately) gets people to fund your research, I'd think that would fall under your umbrella.
So it should sit and wait to be consulted, never daring to assert itself. So why would anyone bother to consult it, then? You believe that you are going to sell your product without the least bit of advertising? How many phones would Motorola sell if they refused to advertise in any way and just waited to be asked whether they happened to sell phones? Having a product and not being willing to tell anyone about it unless asked seems precisely as useful as not having any product at all.
I don't know how to respond to this. It is beyond my imagination to conceive of how a human being could be so detached from the world as to watch it decay into chaos and not only not be concerned, but actually "get a kick out of" it.
You keep saying this, and I keep not seeing it in practice. Again, the mass public isn't some perfect analyst. Remember that "Mad Money" guy on CNN or whatever back in the day? All he did was sit around and make predictions. He wasn't good at it. People kept watching, despite the fact that he cried wolf hundreds of times and was wrong. It took a disaster the size of the financial meltdown to finally get rid of him, and even then, only after Jon Stewart roasted him for a whole week and it grabbed headlines. There are similarly thousands of charlatans, quacks, and scammers who make money on the basic human tendency to want to see something as a success and to not be very good at remembering failures.
Nonsense. How do you think they came to believe that in the first place? Because the other side doesn't have any qualms about trying to convince people of their beliefs, and they know what tactics actually work (sitting around, waiting for them to come to you, and trying to maintain absolute credibility by refusing to advocate for yourself at all probably isn't one of them). "Debate" may be the wrong way to think of it. Debates are between fairly high-minded, scientific types. Normal folks don't "debate", they just talk. I feel that the unwillingness of many scientists to talk to plain folks and take the initiative to put forth their side, with a little normal, human self-advocacy is the thing that damages science, by making it look cold, scary, and antisocial, as well as making it unlikely that most people will ever have heard your side.
You know, when I talk to real, live young-Earthers (which I do fairly often), I find that they just don't know about science. No one has told them much about it. Scientists refuse to lower themselves to reach out to them, and their own community certainly doesn't encourage them to go seek out science on their own. When I show them and explain to them how geology and biology and things work, they are sometimes surprised and excited, having had no idea this whole world of cool ideas existed. You'd be amazed.
The thing is, the artificial distinction you're trying to maintain, the distinction of talking to normal people totally dispassionately, is not a positive distinction. It makes you look worse, not better. It's better to behave like a normal person so as to even the odds on that front, so hopefully the slight edge of being right will be enough to put you ahead.
So how well has that worked so far? Have we made those kinds of arguments look bad? Have people stopped using them? Of course not. You don't have the power to render those arguments valid or not in the minds of the public. Maybe someday, average people will be at that intellectual level. But in the real world of today, I think people already see them as on the same level, and there's not much any of us can do to change that. You just have to work with the rules the world gives you, even if they're dumb rules.
A lot of that information will stay bottled up within the community and never get out.