I’ll start by highly recommending this book. Especially to scientists or those interested in science. As suggested by the title – Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens our Future - the book acknowledges the limits of the public’s understanding of science and how science works. But I felt the book was most powerful because it focuses on the role of scientists in disseminating scientific information. More on that later.
The first two chapters give a very nice background on the role science has played, from its high funding and close relationships with policy-makers soon after World War II, to its period of low funding and disconnect from policy-makers, to the more recent “war on science” (the topic of Mooney’s previous book).
Much of the main part of the book looks at the intersection of science and other institutions. Individual chapters look at science as it relates to politics, to religion, to its portrayal in Hollywood, and to journalism, all within the subcontext of C.P. Snow’s “two cultures” theme. In short, different ways of thinking, and different needs, affect the interaction of the two institutions in the dyad. For example, whereas the needs of the media are episodic, science is more incremental. So every incremental finding coming from scientific studies can be picked up by the media and presented as if it is a revelation. Except it might suggest the opposite of yesterday’s revelation. No matter that the two studies merely looked at different parts of the picture and support the full knowledge base, the media assume each piece stands on its own. This can be, and usually is, highly confusing to the public. Similar conflicts in the messaging occur between science and religion, scientist depiction in film (usually as a stereotypical caricature), and politics.
One chapter discusses the role of blogs. As newspapers and broadcast media have been eliminating science coverage, at least 1000 science blogs have sprung up. While blogs can help disseminate information broadly, the authors say “[t]he problem with the internet is obvious to anyone who has ever used it; There’s tons of information available, but much of it is crap.” Misinformation thrives, and those who want to manipulate the debate can publish whatever they want, and unfortunately, usually do. Much of it is biased, inaccurate, or outright fabrication. Which is why blogs may be useful for rapidly getting the word out, they cannot be relied upon for an accurate assessment of the science itself.
The authors refer repeatedly in the book to Carl Sagan, an astronomer who was also a stellar communicator, but whose popularity was often seen by other scientists as an indignity (i.e., to traditional scientists who preferred to do their science and leave the communication to others). But in the end the authors of Unscientific America, one a journalist and the other a scientist (who together write a blog called The Intersection), assert that disseminating the science to the lay public, to the media, and to policy-makers is an “integral part of the job description of scientists themselves.” Essentially, they say that it should be part of every scientist’s responsibility to communicate the science accurately, and to make sure that the science is not misrepresented by those who would misuse it.
The book is eminently readable (I read it in it’s entirety on a cross-Atlantic flight) and surprisingly insightful. I highly recommend the book; it is definitely worth the read.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 100
And THERE, Ladeez un' Gennulmun, lies the nut of the book - right there in the subtitle. If we as a nation don't soon start understanding how science actually works, AND how scientists work, we're soon gonna be in amazingly deep doo-doo. If we don't soon stop fighting science with political nonsense, we're gonna be behind the biggest 8-ball in three galaxies. AND, if we don't stop believing that superstition and folk-tales have equal rights with science to be heard as an explanation for reality, we may as well hang it up and give over to whatever passes for Mullahs in Xtianity.
Clearly there is no way that the lay public can become experts on science, just as there is no way for us all to become experts on plumbing, heart surgery, or the global economic ramifications of AIDS in Africa.
The key, in my opinion, is to reach a point where decision-makers and policy makers learn enough to ask pertinent and honest questions of scientists that will help them in making wise decisions and policy. That is not currently the case. Policy-makers (especially politicians) seem to line up their scientific views based on what side of the aisle they sit. That, to me, is the most egregious failing, i.e., that some decision-makers simply won't even listen to science, and in fact deny it, based solely on political party.
So "illiteracy," which implies a lack of the ability to understand, is perhaps not the most accurate phrasing. In many cases it isn't the lack of understanding, it is the refusal to understand. It is intentional pursuit of ignorance of science because they don't like the possible policy options that would be required to address the realities of what the science tells us.
I was a science teacher for a few years. It's amazing how much misinformation I've passed on as it was the only thing I knew and it was IN the book.
Take, for example, the book's opening discussion about "Why Pluto Matters." We all have learned throughout our lifetimes that Pluto was the furthermost planet in the solar system, but recently it was "demoted" and is no longer considered a planet. It caused a bit of an uproar because people were comfortable with our knowledge. That is one thing we need to be wary of - we should always be ready to learn new things. Science by its nature learns (and informs). It's just sometimes we aren't willing to be taught.
The two cultures.
As a veteran of President Kennedy's challenge to put a man on the Moon in a decade, I saw first hand what adequate funding of science with a clear goal can accomplish. Even if we hadn't gotten to the moon, the interest in science generated by NASA and Sputnik, the young minds attracted to a scientific education, the advancements in science and engineering, and the talented people who later migrated to all parts of the economy after the "space race" were worth every penny we spent on getting to the Moon..
Your laptop computer, modern airliners, digital communications, and thousands of other advancements were all due to our commitment to space, and the young minds that were attracted to science and educated during the 60's and 70's.
That's why I was profoundly disappointed to President Obama's decision not to pursue Mars exploration for financial reasons. Because of his preoccupation with expenditures on political pork and social programs, our "smartest President ever" is pouring our tax dollars down a rat hole instead of investing them in the economic growth engine of science and technology.
30 to 40 years from now, our children and grandchildren will have a poorer quality of life because of a myopic President who blew one of the most important decisions of his presidency.
As to the book, sounds interesting David, I would love to read it when I take a break from fiction. More than half of what I read is novels.
I don't believe a genuine scientific effort is possible with "the challenge of converting the world energy infrastructure from fossil fuels to renewables". It has a political agenda and will wreck the world economy, hardly an agenda that will inspire young minds.
But I'm curious about your statement in this comment that Kennedy's moon mission "did not have a political agenda." The entire rationale for the program was 100% political. The Soviets had already put Yuri Gargarin in space and Kennedy (and the rest of the US) felt that was completely unacceptable politically because, after all, the US was supposed to be so much better than the "red menace." So Kennedy decided that we had to do them one better by actually landing a man (men) on the moon. So its origins and incentives for adequate funding were entirely political (well, and bruised egos).
But, it worked. As you point out, the US flooded the country with science funding specifically to achieve this one goal.
The point is that the political agenda is what drives the prioritization and the funding to allow scientific research to move forward. With adequate funding and a priority to find a solution, we can make great strides. Without adequate funding, and a political denial of the need for priority, we're stuck in the mud.
Funny - I read just the opposite. For example...
Solar Job Training On the Rise
Unemployed seek training for green-collar jobs
Science is a broad term encompassing a variety of disciplines, to condemn one area is to drop roadblocks in another. Scientific acumen is not for everyone the focus should and will be to provide the general public with access to summaries of advances and introduce some results slowly like with the PC which is a perfect example of how something not many saw as valuable has become a multi Billion $ enterprise with many spin-offs.
It is amazing how imbued your biases are, even concerning a subject seemingly so separated.
1 The very rich;
2 The very poor and
3 The best athletes,
... leaving the largest sector to rely on the public education (actually pretty good in most places) and either community college or no college at all.
Maybe we need more academic scholarships to places like MIT, Stanford and the Ivy League and less athletic scholarships to places like Notre Dame, UCLA and Miami.
I also agree more academic and less athletic scholarships should be given. Unfortunately most of the money comes from well-to-do alumni, who tend to direct it toward whatever they want. And since athletics brings in more cash than really bright students, plus the "school pride" component from winning championships, I'm not sure I see much changing in the private schools.
For public/state schools, these priorities can be made.
That same year, there was a block party in Philadelphia to celebrate Rasheed Wallace's achieving 710 on his SAT so that he would be able to go to NC State on a full athletic scholarship. By the way he stayed there for two years before turning pro.
Now tell me a little about academic scholarships for high achieving students.
My daughter was offered several scholarships to attend different colleges. The one she chose did not so I paid the full private school tab. I have never regretted it. She graduated with honors.
Sounds like your son is very successful. Just getting admitted to MIT is a major accomplishment. Congratulations, dad!
I, of course have no regrets in sending all four of my children to college, the youngest starting this year but, as a result, I'll be deep in debt until well past the age of 80.
Therein lies the problem to the initial point of this thread. Our priorities are so screwed up that the largest group of Americans have the most difficult time getting into higher education.
Thanks for Excellent and Informative Post !
I am strongly worried by the Lunatics, like the Creationists, and those fools that have lots of Conspiracy Theories with Extra Terrestrials, Hollow Earths, Strange beings living among us....
Some of these lunacies have political ramifications and some Politicians are pandering to these fools....
I love science and everything scientific ... but I have lived a Humble Life without any Great Achievements except to work for the common good ( Comunity Organizer ??? - much despised profession ! - Remember the last Republican Convention ?? )
I am also crazy for Ancient Things and Ancient Times, like the Invention of Agriculture, Villages, ... invention of Pottery ..... invention of Metals ... writing and civilization ....
That is why I use my RACIALITY.COM to publish a lot of videos and news about Ancient People and the Formation of Human Races .... Archaeogenetics and ArchaeoMythology ...
Vicente Duque --------------------- RACIALITY.COM
Does the book give any suggestions to increase involvement in math and the sciences?
After reading the title of the book I did a quick search on the promoting of math and science in public education, I found some but not really a lot.
A society that worships entertainers as much as ours does really is not creating an atmosphere conducive to general learning.
And again unfortunately, there are those who cynically use that to their advantage. Rather than help increase knowledge, they stand in the way of it.
It's a fact. People close their minds when confronted with technical talk. It's like a millipede rolling up when you poke it. I wish I knew the answer. People have resented/feared people who know stuff that they don't forever.
When my brother was in 7th grade he was washing his hands in a bathroom at school and noticed that the paper towels weren't as good as the last batch. He said "These paper towels aren't very absorbent." Another kid said "How come you're always using those big words?"
And I like the millipede analogy!
[And the big words thing seems to be a problem here on Gather too]
But then, that is why scientists are trained to be very precise in what they are measuring and document uncertainty. The goal is to avoid extrapolating beyond the confidence in the data. By definition, extrapolation is the construction of new data points outside the current data by assessing the trends within the existing data.
It is that documentation of uncertainty that seems confusing to non-scientists, who often prefer to hear something very definitive, even if it's absolutely wrong. And it is that documentation of uncertainty that is exploited by those who choose to obfuscate the science for their own non-scientific agendas.
Thank you for the well-done review!
Most scientists, however, find it difficult to communicate science to non-scientists.
I think this is the most insidious problem.
"Clearly there is no way that the lay public can become experts on science"
I disagree with this. It isn't that hard to understand the scientific method, if one makes the slightest effort to do so.
Excellent review.
I wholeheartedly agree that anyone with the ability to think clearly should be able to grasp the concept of the scientific method. Alas, it seems that way too many feel more comfortable not challenging their preconceptions, which leads to the aforementioned "intentional pursuit of ignorance."
That said, scientists must do a much better job at communicating the science accurately. And in my opinion, ensuring that others do not intentionally misrepresent the science. Especially when it has far reaching ramifications.
I think a big obstacle to people like me in understanding is the media's presentation of scientific news. They are interested less in promoting truth and understanding of their science news than in arousing immediate attention to what they are telling their audiences. It's all about ratings with the media.
AS you note, the media and science have inherent conflicts in that the media live for ratings, sensationalism, and what the book calls "episodic" reporting. Science is incremental, and even studies that the media present as conflicting most often are actually just providing incremental information that together (with lots of other studies) informs the whole.
It's something that scientists perhaps need to pay more attention to, as the book does a good job (I think) of discussing.
I know you have high standards when talking about science so I wonder about your book recommendation. I am still not clear on what you feel constitutes a “scientist”, but I doubt that either Chris or Sheril meet that criteria. Aside from antidotal cases I didn’t find any “data” which leads me to believe that this is all opinion (which Chris W. feels is totally unacceptable when talking about science).
The authors “Unscientific America” give the impression of having a political agenda rather than looking at the information they include in the book. I am disappointed in what they presented, it seems they missed an opportunity to address their identified schism between “scientists” and the general public.
Here are some of their quotes that raise my concerns: “And yet today this country is also home to a populace,…rejects scientific principles.” I am not sure which proven principles are rejected, but they so easily condemn us non-“scientists” out of hand. That seems a bit non scientific.
“If the Bush administration could become so outrageously anti-science,” and yet they talk about how science funding was reduced by Democratic Congresses in the 80s and Democratic President in the 90s, and the funding stopped declining under the President in the 2000s. They talk about President Obama being the savior but he was trying to ignore the science debate. “..but something in zeitgeist just clicked, perhaps because the messenger was the man who should have been President” (Al Gore), I wonder how this fits into the divide of science and the public.
They further follow this path when talking about the media role in the divide. “…luring viewers away from substantive content as the news that still remained took a politicized tilt (e.g., Fox News) or devoted to partisan shout-fests.” This implies that Fox is the media outlet that is the cause of the demise of science reporting and yet much later they acknowledge that the Post, the Globe, and even CNN have cut their entire science journalist departments. That seems like independent of the labeled “political” bent science is being de-emphasized.
They go into how deregulation has been a significant cause of the divide, and yet I missed any data that explained how that forced the science journalists out expect that it was somehow meeting the demands of investors. Do you recall any anti-science movement or referendums by stock holder?
They expand on the religious organizations being a significant contributor to the divide, they question the voting on best science blog sites because it doesn’t fit their view of global warming. They whine about what is popular “…as politicians have grown less needy and solicitous, it has fueled science’s declining political influence.”
And so we entered the “culture wars”: Secular, scientific, and the pro-choice America clashed regularly with a “faith-based (and very Republican) side of the country.”
“…for Reagan brought anti-science into political mainstream as never before. His worst abuses: smiling on creationism… and Star Wars…the center of his foreign policy.” “…outside experts took a look at Star Wars…, voiced grave doubts as to it technical feasibility as well as its strategic wisdom.” “In the end, Sagan played a significant part…in helping to usher in a thawing…”
They don’t consider that world politics/diplomacy may take skills that are learned and not intuitive. Sagan’s engagement may have been different if he were more diplomatically experienced, and to credit him with even in a side way manner for the end of the cold war is a bit pompous. It may have been the believe that the US could finance the science of Star Wars more than the science of Star Wars that made a change in the cold war.
“…sound something like this:“I can’t believe the public is so stupid that it believes X”…”
“We’re more interested in divides and how to bridge them.”
“Rather, we need a nation in which science has far more prominence in politics and the media.”
“There are too few collaborations between scientists and journalists, screenwriters, politicians and religious leaders.”
“The environmental and consumer movements, spearheaded by the likes of Rachel Carson and Ralph Nader, brought home the realization that science wasn’t always beneficial.”
This all feeds an impression of an elitist culture in science and these writers. I have to admit I have felt that during discussion even here on Gather. The idea that the general public can’t discuss science issues because they are the general public and must be science illiterates. One might consider whether the challenges are to pet sciences issue or about other issues such as a concern for the ethics of how scientists approach their chosen field of endeavor. Another step may be learning to listen and talk to the public rather than feel they need to be talked down to them. The simple remark ‘your aren’t a scientist’ sets the tone for whatever follows (if there is a dialog after that).
I respect your opinions and appreciate the book recommendation, I apologize for late reading and length of comments.
But let me respond to one or two parts.
For example, you say you doubt whether they are scientists. That is curious, since I said in my review that one is a journalist and the other a scientist. And since from your comments it appears you read the book or some part of it, you should know that one never claims to be a scientist - he is a journalist/writer with interest in sciences. The other author presents her scientific credentials, so clearly she is a scientist. There really shouldn't be any doubt about who they are.
But the point really isn't relevant anyway. They are writing about science, not practicing it. And as you say yourself in your comment, non-scientists can talk about science. They clearly have done research on the topic and have personal insights, but the book is about the intersection of science and policy and journalism, etc. It doesn't proclaim to be science. It proclaims to be about science and how science relates to other professions.
And that is the point. It is okay to write about science without being a scientist, but to claim to know science better than scientists who study the science, all while demonstrating a lack of understanding of basic science, is definitely not okay. I certainly am not going to tell my certified plumber he is wrong because i read a blog that denies water runs through pipes, so why should it be okay for non-scientists who don't understand even the basics to be telling those who do understand science that they are wrong?
That is what is so frustrating to scientists. We deal in facts, experiment, hypothesis testing. But we face non-scientists who deny our findings, not on any scientific basis, but solely on a political or ignorance basis. We face people who take Senator Inhofe's word that "global warming is a hoax" as an edict from God, and who see no need to question why a Senator from a state whose economy is based almost entirely on oil, and whom has no scientific training at all, would deny any science that would cause the use of oil to decrease...and yet these same people say that the entire body of research over decades of scientific exploration by scientists of every type and working at every type of institution (govt, private, public, academic, international, solo, skeptic, etc) is somehow "politically driven". The concept is so irrational as to boggle the mind.
Scientists find it hard to deal with such irrationality. And that, I believe, is the main point of the book. The authors opine that scientists need to find a way to communicate the science accurately and not to let the ideologues mislead the public.
This all feeds an impression of an elitist culture in science and these writers.
It seems that too many of us in this country disdain intelligence, education, and training. They call it "elitist." That really is disingenuous, not to mention inaccurate. Do we call doctors elitist because they have been trained in medicine? Plumbers elitist because they have been trained in plumbing? CEOs elitist because they have been trained in how to run a company? Of course not. So why call scientists elitist because they have been trained in science? Would you disdain a CEO because he knows how to run a multibillion dollar multinational company?
This isn't about "you aren't a scientist." This is about non-scientists with no training and no understanding telling scientists with training and understanding that they are wrong. It's about a plumber telling a brain surgeon that people do not have brains. It's about claiming to be a "skeptic" when there isn't enough knowledge on which to base a skepticism.
I'll end with a note about skepticism. Some seem to think that skepticism can be based on lack of knowledge. That couldn't be further from the truth. Skepticism MUST be based on enough knowledge to enable an informed opinion on a topic, no matter what the topic. One simply cannot be a skeptic about something they don't understand. If you don't understand it, you are uninformed. And that's fine. No one can be an expert on everything. Which is why we rely on experts to rewire our houses, fix our plumbing, shoot rockets to the moon, run multinational companies, and do science. We need people who are specially trained so that we all benefit from their knowledge. It just doesn't make sense to then go and tell them they are wrong, when there isn't even enough understanding on which to base such an assertion.
Elitists aren’t about the knowledge they possess, it is the attitude that they project.
Experience gives me reason to feel that if people make the effort to discuss the issues rather than distain the audience they would be much more successful in achieving their goals.
As examples; if embryonic stem cell scientists would have listened they might have found that if they were willing to work on a code of ethics for handling the embryos rather then trying to force the desire for federal tax dollars the whole issue may have been resolve with the vast majority of the country accepting that area of research. The creation issue could easily have been defused long ago if the scientific proponents of evolution had accepted that faith is not something that science is designed to prove or disprove. The preoccupation with how long ago life began between carbon dating and the Bible became the tipping point. The discussion should have been science is simply about learning how nature works and what it shows not who or how it was established. If the "global warming" hadn’t followed Sagan's model of engagement, the “scientists” might have focused on applying their science to the understanding of the impact of policy changes, this could changed the issue.
You say one of the authors is a "scientist" and I accept the rebuke. Not having your criteria for being a ‘scientist” I was basing my remarks on your past emphasis on how scientists provide data otherwise it is simply opinion. In the confines of this book with its extensive footnoting the authors provided no data to explain their observations so that suggested to me that they weren’t "scientists" they were simply offering opinions.
As for “scientists’” frustration, “We deal in facts, experiment, hypothesis testing.”, it is more about projecting the rationality of their focused universe. My view is that there is much of science that is yet to be explained so it isn’t as precise as many want to admit. As best I can tell there is much disagreement in the specialized areas of science among peers, but because the peers have a certain level of academic credentials they are tolerated. When the “scientists” interact with people not having those credentials the tolerance is no longer needed so it becomes a more difficult conversation. The book title and how the issue was address is indicative. “Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens our Future” was overwhelmingly about blame with little exploration of solutions. Saying “scientists” need more communications training in school has little proven value. Most scientists strive to gather understanding before they delve into research so would I have thought the writers would have emphasized understanding the audience before focusing on communications classes.
Skepticism has to do with trust more than education. I don’t have the education (at least so I have been told on Gather), but I can still be skeptical of the “greenhouse gas” affect. Why should I trust the new science when I haven’t heard how it has been able to model past warmings?
Actually, it's more about the attitude of the person labeling the other as an elitist.
Experience gives me reason to feel that if people make the effort to discuss the issues rather than distain the audience they would be much more successful in achieving their goals.
Scientists do make an effort. But tell me how long you expect them to explain the science when the "listener" is denying it based on nothing more than what they read on a blog? Or that the science was being countered by irrelevant non-scientific ideological postulations?
As examples; if embryonic stem cell scientists would have listened they might have found that if they were willing to work on a code of ethics for handling the embryos rather then trying to force the desire for federal tax dollars the whole issue may have been resolve with the vast majority of the country accepting that area of research.
This is a perfect example. There IS a code of ethics. And the "desire for federal funding" is an ideological viewpoint foisted into the debate by those who oppose stem cell research for non-scientific reasons that are completely irrelevant to the science.
The creation issue could easily have been defused long ago if the scientific proponents of evolution had accepted that faith is not something that science is designed to prove or disprove.
Again, no scientist has ever tried to prove or disprove faith. Never. It is the creationists who are trying to disprove science based solely on faith.
I could go on but it would be more of the same. You've created straw men that are not real, and then proceed to argue these unrealities. Scientists deal with realities and try to explain them the best they can. But how can you explain things to people who refuse to listen? And who offer bananas to a discussion about climate?
Not having your criteria for being a ‘scientist” I was basing my remarks on your past emphasis on how scientists provide data otherwise it is simply opinion.
Here again you've created a false premise, then argued against it rather than the reality. This book is about science policy and interactions with the non-scientific community. It isn't "science." So it's unclear what "data" you expect them to be presenting. That said, they DO present data. Lots of it. They support their contentions with information, some of it scientific, some of it sociological, and some of it personal observation. That's what the book is about. You seem to think the book is about proposing some new scientific theory of planetoid wobble or something. The book supports its view.
My view is that there is much of science that is yet to be explained so it isn’t as precise as many want to admit. As best I can tell there is much disagreement in the specialized areas of science among peers, but because the peers have a certain level of academic credentials they are tolerated.
Duane, the view of all scientists is that there is much of the world that is yet to be explained. That's why we have jobs trying to explain it. There is disagreement, but it would be inaccurate to extrapolate this to mean that we don't reach consensus on certain issues. Evolution has been scientifically proven. Climate change has been scientifically proven. Of course there are uncertainties, but so there are uncertainties in everything in which there are natural variability. These uncertainties are used by non-scientists to suggest there is disagreement. This is an inaccurate interpretation.
As for "tolerated," I'm unsure what you mean of that. No one is "tolerated." All scientists must make their case and provide data to support it. Then the case must withstand the scrutiny of others and additional investigation. The data build until the original idea is supported or not supported. When the data lead to overwhelming support for a conclusion then it is called a consensus.
When the “scientists” interact with people not having those credentials the tolerance is no longer needed so it becomes a more difficult conversation.
Again, it is not that scientists don't feel the need to "tolerate" non-scientists, but that the conversation becomes more difficult because non-scientists are trying to tell the scientists they are wrong, but the non-scientists are using incorrect data and/or logic. For example, non-scientists will declare "It's the sun, stupid" and think that they have invalidated the entire body of research by thousands of scientists over decades of work. But the scientists who actually study climate know how the sun influences the phenomenon and how everything else influences the phenomenon, and the data demonstrate that while the sun obviously has an influence, it is negligible compared to that of CO2. They explain this, but still you get free market backed repetition that "it's the sun, stupid."
In other words, scientists learn from the data while non-scientists continue to repeat their mantras even after they have been shown to be wrong. One follows where the data lead (ALL the data), while the other cherry picks only those data they think supports their predefined conclusion (or they think can be spun to support their predefined conclusion).
Scientists work to maintain strong ethics and honesty. Free market backed groups have been shown repeatedly to misinterpret, misrepresent, and outright lie in order to push their agenda (i.e., blocking of any regulation).
Skepticism has to do with trust more than education. I don’t have the education (at least so I have been told on Gather), but I can still be skeptical of the “greenhouse gas” affect. Why should I trust the new science when I haven’t heard how it has been able to model past warmings?
That's just it, Duane. As I already have discussed, skepticism is NOT valid when based on lack of information. You cannot be skeptical of something you don't understand. That is called uninformed. Being uninformed isn't a problem in itself - we are all uninformed about most things when it comes to being "expert" enough to make decisions. Which is why we rely on those who have become informed to guide us. We rely on people to build cars that we can drive, though most of us are uninformed about how to build one ourselves (and for some, to even drive one properly). We rely on doctors to evaluate and treat illnesses. We rely on plumbers to fix our water leaks. We rely on rocket scientists to get us to the moon and back. We rely on teachers to teach our children.
In short, we rely on experts trained in their specific expertise for every facet of our lives. And yet some people feel that they should distrust scientific experts based almost entirely on the fact that the don't like the possible remedies.
So no, Duane, it is not legitimate for you to be "skeptical of the greenhouse gas effect" (something that is a well-known scientific principle) just because you haven't been trained to understand it. Again, no one expects you to become an expert on every issue. But at the same time, it isn't valid for you to say scientists are wrong just because you don't know all the answers yourself.
“Scientists do make an effort.” That doesn’t seem to be consistent with what the authors were saying. I wonder if a “scientist’s” success is based on making an effort or on the quality of their work.
“There IS a code of ethics.” Where do I find it?
“And the "desire for federal funding" is an ideological viewpoint foisted into the debate by those who oppose stem cell research for non-scientific reasons that are completely irrelevant to the science.” As I recall it was about an executive order (which is not establishing law) about federal funding not banning embryonic research.
“Again, no scientist has ever tried to prove or disprove faith.” That didn’t seem to be the gist of what the authors had to say, I believe they identified specific people attacking religion using science.
“It isn't "science."” I apologize, I never meant to imply it was science, it was more about the scientific approach that is infallible. Develop a hypothesis, collect data, and verify. I was surprised that in a discussion of science policy that that approach could be so easily discarded and the book retain credibility.
“That said, they DO present data. Lots of it. They support their contentions with information, some of it scientific, some of it sociological, and some of it personal observation.” I had never heard where antidotal incidents or even sociological opinion was considered data. However, I am willing to learn.
“the view of all scientists is that there is much of the world that is yet to be explained.” The exception must be the cause of “global warming.”
“Again, it is not that scientists don't feel the need to "tolerate" non-scientists,” I must be the exception.
Thank you for your time and effort, I accept being a science illiterate and the need to leave science to the “scientists”. I do agree with the authors on there being a diminishing deference to “scientists”. I doubt the book readers grasp the need or have the will to change. That is too bad because with small changes success is within grasp.
It is not inconsistent at all with what they are saying. And perhaps you should wonder if a scientist's success is more based on the willingness of the listeners to accept the information presented.
“There IS a code of ethics.” Where do I find it?
At every relevant research facility, University, government grant, etc. Not to mention the training on implementation. And the entire scientific process.
“And the "desire for federal funding" is an ideological viewpoint foisted into the debate by those who oppose stem cell research for non-scientific reasons that are completely irrelevant to the science.” As I recall it was about an executive order (which is not establishing law) about federal funding not banning embryonic research.
The point is that "desire for federal funding" is a straw man pushed by ideologues whenever they don't have a logical argument.
“Again, no scientist has ever tried to prove or disprove faith.” That didn’t seem to be the gist of what the authors had to say, I believe they identified specific people attacking religion using science.
Not at all. Religion cannot be attacked using science because religion is based entirely on faith, which is not provable or disprovable by science. What scientists were doing was refuting the attempts to claim a purely religious belief is somehow science. It isn't. Science must be testable. Religion is not testable, therefore it is not science. And cannot be claimed to be science.
“It isn't "science."” I apologize, I never meant to imply it was science, it was more about the scientific approach that is infallible. Develop a hypothesis, collect data, and verify. I was surprised that in a discussion of science policy that that approach could be so easily discarded and the book retain credibility.
You are mistaken. It wasn't discarded at all. As I already indicated, the points they made in the book were supported with facts, sociology, and observation. Again, they weren't proposing a new scientific theory, they were discussing the intersection of science and other segments of society.
“That said, they DO present data. Lots of it. They support their contentions with information, some of it scientific, some of it sociological, and some of it personal observation.” I had never heard where antidotal incidents or even sociological opinion was considered data. However, I am willing to learn.
All information can be data. Again, we're talking about a discussion about the intersection of science and other segments of society, not the physics of interplanetary wobble. Data needs are different for different types of discussions.
“the view of all scientists is that there is much of the world that is yet to be explained.” The exception must be the cause of “global warming.”
Again, you interject some value judgment based on lack of information into the discussion. By doing so you completely misrepresent everything I just said.
“Again, it is not that scientists don't feel the need to "tolerate" non-scientists,” I must be the exception.
Ditto.
Thank you for your time and effort, I accept being a science illiterate and the need to leave science to the “scientists”. I do agree with the authors on there being a diminishing deference to “scientists”. I doubt the book readers grasp the need or have the will to change. That is too bad because with small changes success is within grasp.
No one says that the public should ignore science. In fact, scientists want the public to be engaged. But we also cannot let non-scientific free market groups deny the science that has reached a consensus. Discussions about science have to be done based on honesty. And that is what frustrates scientists the most. They do their best to present the best science, and non-scientists lie about it. Which does the public, and all of us, a severe disservice.
“At every relevant research facility, University, government grant, etc.”, I was looking for help.
“The point is that "desire for federal funding" is a straw man pushed by ideologues whenever they don't have a logical argument.” Why did the “scientists” go after straw man?
“No one says that the public should ignore science. In fact, scientists want the public to be engaged.” Do you believe by simply saying it you convey that message?
“Again, you interject some value judgment based on lack of information into the discussion. By doing so you completely misrepresent everything I just said.” Sometimes sarcasm is simply a relieve mechanism for frustration.
“It is not inconsistent at all with what they are saying. And perhaps you should wonder if a scientist's success is more based on the willingness of the listeners to accept the information presented.” Have you ever had an instructor that made a topic boring/disinteresting/created a barrier to learning it by how they delivered the information? Maybe I I’ve been wrong in thinking what it takes to be a “scientist”, rather than quality of work it might be simply making the effort.
I thought the book was about a gap between the “scientists” and the science illiterates, and that that gap needs to be addressed. It must be that the gap is to be blamed on the science illiterates and only when they change will the gap be closed. My experience is that placing blame never fixes the root cause of any problem.
Have you ever heard, “If we fail to learn from the past, we are destined to repeat it.” I or “if you continue to do the same thing and expect different results then you are crazy.”
The missed opportunity was the authors not trying to look at the gap from the science illiterate’s perspective.
And they can help you if you are interested in learning.
Why did the “scientists” go after straw man?
They didn't.
Do you believe by simply saying it you convey that message?
Is this some sort of rhetorical question?
Sometimes sarcasm is simply a relieve mechanism for frustration.
I cannot discern your meaning from this sentence. Please explain.
Have you ever had an instructor that made a topic boring/disinteresting/created a barrier to learning it by how they delivered the information? Maybe I I’ve been wrong in thinking what it takes to be a “scientist”, rather than quality of work it might be simply making the effort.
I thought the book was about a gap between the “scientists” and the science illiterates, and that that gap needs to be addressed. It must be that the gap is to be blamed on the science illiterates and only when they change will the gap be closed. My experience is that placing blame never fixes the root cause of any problem.
Of course, some "instructors" are better at communicating than others. And one of the points of the book is to remind scientists of the need to communicate in terms that other parties can understand (and, of course, to listen to the concerns of the other parties so scientists can best address those concerns). But the other parties also have to want to learn. And in most of the cases that are in question, the non-scientists actively seek ignorance. They do not want to learn, they simply want to say that scientists are wrong. Needless to say there are those who do want to learn but are fed so much inaccurate information (on purpose) from others that they have no idea what the facts are. So if everyone was honest it would make communicating more effective, don't you think?
As for "placing blame," are you saying that scientists should remain silent and not call out those people who are intentionally lying about the science? That wouldn't be ethical or honest, both of which scientists place a very high value on. Unfortunately, many outside lobbying groups seem to place a very low priority on telling the truth.
Have you ever heard, “If we fail to learn from the past, we are destined to repeat it.” I or “if you continue to do the same thing and expect different results then you are crazy.”
Yes, but it's unclear to me what point you are trying to make by mentioning them. Scientists are learning from the past all the time. And this book encourages scientists to try communicating in new ways that incorporate how the different segments of society relate and think.
The missed opportunity was the authors not trying to look at the gap from the science illiterate’s perspective.
Why do you think they missed an opportunity? The authors did look at the gap from a science illiterate's perspective. In fact, the main focus of the book is examining how other segments of society think and look at science. It largely is from their perspective. So your comment would seem to have things reversed.
“…the non-scientists actively seek ignorance.” If that were true, how does someone seek ignorance, to unlearn.
“But the other parties also have to want to learn.” Not if you want change. Who do you think the more valuable instructor is the one that presents the information so it is easy to deliver or the one that presents it so it is easy to understand? Which is larger the number of “scientists” or the number of science illiterates? Who do you think is more important to closing the gap?
“Yes, but it's unclear to me what point you are trying to make by mentioning them.” If you notice during this conversation I have had a single message, but I have presented it in many different ways. Your message has been consistent, the listener has to change, want to listen. How many different ways have you presented it?
“So if everyone was honest it would make communicating more effective, don't you think?” No, because everyone is being honest as they see it (except for the criminals). Communication is effective when it matches the audience’s needs. Do you recall a plastic wrap commercial where they wrap a piece of steak and tossed it to a tiger?
“No one says that the public should ignore science. In fact, scientists want the public to be engaged. Do you believe by simply saying it you convey that message? Is this some sort of rhetorical question?” Do you believe that wanting the public to be engaged will make it happen?
“Why do you think they missed an opportunity?” Their audience was the “scientists”, they never expected the science illiterates to read the book so they never explored why the science illiterates are so distant from science. The authors simply look at the science illiterates as the other side of the gap and never consider what might be done to bring them into closing the gap. The gap is not about science, it is about trust. If you doubt that the gap is about trust than consider how you would look at a “scientist’s” work if you didn’t trust who provided the data.
If you never try to look at the issue through your audience’s eyes you will lose them with the first statement you make.
Seeking ignorance is not "unlearning," it is the avoidance of learning.
“But the other parties also have to want to learn.” Not if you want change. Who do you think the more valuable instructor is the one that presents the information so it is easy to deliver or the one that presents it so it is easy to understand? Which is larger the number of “scientists” or the number of science illiterates? Who do you think is more important to closing the gap?
As I have said many times already in my responses to your comments, the book talks about how scientists and other segments of the community think differently. Thus, scientists have to be better at talking in terms in which others can relate.
However, those other segments have a responsibility to be honest. When a non-scientist tells a scientist that the science the scientist has been studying (and the consensus of the research on that topic by all scientists) is wrong, based solely on a falsehood they read in a blog, then there is nothing a scientist can do. The other segment is not being honest with itself. Or they are not thinking critically (accepting the opinion of an oil state non-scientist Senator as "fact" while denying the scientific consensus built up over decades by tens of thousands of peer-reviewed studies by thousands of scientists from every scientific institution imaginable).
If you notice during this conversation I have had a single message, but I have presented it in many different ways. Your message has been consistent, the listener has to change, want to listen. How many different ways have you presented it?
Do you deny the listener has to change? They could start by being intellectually honest and using a little critical thinking. As repeated above, the book already talks about how scientists need to change, or did you miss that part? But communication is a two way street. One side needs to work harder at driving so that others can discern the direction, but the other side has to stop parking sideways and upside down on the street and claiming they are driving down the street correctly and everyone else is driving the wrong way.
No, because everyone is being honest as they see it (except for the criminals). Communication is effective when it matches the audience’s needs. Do you recall a plastic wrap commercial where they wrap a piece of steak and tossed it to a tiger?
That's not true. Not everyone his being honest as they see it, with others or with themselves. But at least it's heartwarming to see that you agree it is criminal for free market lobbying groups to lie and misinform the public.
Yes, communication is effective when it matches the audiences needs. I have said that repeatedly, as does the book. But it also requires the audience to be honest.
I have no idea what your plastic wrap/tiger reference is supposed to mean. Perhaps you should consider your own advice about communication, or at least explain your analogies (I assume it's an analogy and not some commentary on bisphenol A, heart disease or PETA).
Do you believe that wanting the public to be engaged will make it happen?
Of course not. Which is why I reviewed this book, and repeatedly have said that scientists need to do a better job of communicating, including not allowing non-scientists to lie about the science. And why the public needs to be intellectually honest with themselves and others.
“Why do you think they missed an opportunity?” Their audience was the “scientists”, they never expected the science illiterates to read the book so they never explored why the science illiterates are so distant from science. The authors simply look at the science illiterates as the other side of the gap and never consider what might be done to bring them into closing the gap. The gap is not about science, it is about trust. If you doubt that the gap is about trust than consider how you would look at a “scientist’s” work if you didn’t trust who provided the data.
There are some good points amongst the lack of understanding in this part of your comment. First, it is not correct that the authors' audience was just scientists, as the book is targeted to the mass market audience. Obviously people who read only pulp fiction will not read it, but that isn't because it isn't available to them.
The book does explore why science illiterates are so distant from the science, quite extensively in fact. It is the basis for the authors' entire premise for the book.
Do the authors "simply look at the science illiterates as the other side of the gap?" Well, I wouldn't say "simply," but an argument can be made that the book is more likely to encourage scientists to change then the lay public. But isn't that the point? As the book and I (and you) have said, scientists think differently then other segments of society, so wouldn't it follow that a book that wants to encourage change would have to address the scientists and non-scientists differently? And since no book can be all book, perhaps the authors intended this one to be directed at scientists and the next one to be directed at the public? Or perhaps the authors felt that the public, given that they so often don't seem to understand science, were outside the purpose of the book? You'll have to take that up with the authors since only they know their rationale for what they included and didn't include in the book.
As for "the gap is not about science, it is about trust," I have to agree with you partially. Clearly many in the lay public don't trust scientists. They also don't trust lawyers, but they call a lawyer when they get sued. They also don't trust doctors, but they call a doctor when they get sick. So why not call scientists when there are science issues? Why trust a non-scientific free market organizations opinion on something they haven't studied and that their charter virtually requires them to deny, instead of the sum total of all the research over decades by thousands of scientists and scientific organizations?
So this really isn't about trust. It's about intellectual integrity. It's about denying the sky is blue because it might result in a policy option that you don't like. It's about believing a free market blogger with no knowledge on the topic other than what he reads off of other blogs, and then "not trusting" the scientific community that studies that science.
No, Duane, it is about honesty and integrity. Scientists strive to maintain high standards of both. Free market organizations and bloggers have been documented repeatedly to misrepresent and lie. The public needs to be honest about how they define "trust."
If you never try to look at the issue through your audience’s eyes you will lose them with the first statement you make.
And if the audience doesn't try to look at the issue through the scientists' eyes, they will lose themselves in active pursuit of ignorance.
I'll repeat, it's about intellectual integrity and honesty. The public has to take responsibility for their role in understanding. Which means not believing every piece of illogical garbage that comes off a blog or "I got in an email."
“…the non-scientists actively seek ignorance.” It could be avoidance of reality, staying comfortable, even their knowledge base or the topic, but calling it “seeking ignorance” lacks understanding the audience.
“When a non-scientist tells a scientist that the science the scientist has been studying (and the consensus of the research on that topic by all scientists) is wrong, based solely on a falsehood they read in a blog, then there is nothing a scientist can do. The other segment is not being honest with itself.” When you focus of blogs and the talking heads you are focusing on a tiny segment and you play to them. Communication needs to be about effectiveness.
“Do you deny the listener has to change?” Why do you think the listener will change? The listener doesn’t change until they come to accept what is being presented, and they won’t accept that until it is presented in a way that fits their rationality. How have you changed after reading the book?
“But communication is a two way street.” You’re right, and it is easier to push a rope than pull it, it is easier to whip a horse than lead it, it is easy to get kids to do something by yelling at them than by enticing them.
“But at least it's heartwarming to see that you agree it is criminal for free market lobbying groups to lie and misinform the public.” So to you every lobbying group that supports free markets is criminal. I belief in the free market, the implication is that I am a liar, a misinformer by supporting free markets. My point is how you said this erected a barrier to my listening.
“I have said that repeatedly, as does the book. But it also requires the audience to be honest.” When a “scientist” conducts an experiment and doesn’t get the expected results is the source of the data blamed with a demand that it quit hiding the real facts or is the method of gathering data reviewed?
“And why the public needs to be intellectually honest with themselves and others.” Do you realize how difficult that is? Have I demanded that of you? All I have strived for is us to stay engaged so we can keep trying to find how hear each other. I truly believe you are an honest and thoughtful person, but you have lived a different life from me so I trying offer away to look at things through my experiences.
“Thus, scientists have to be better at talking in terms in which others can relate.” It is more than simply the terms used, it is what they try to say. Sagan wasn’t wrong about the science, but he was in using it to force his judgment on policy. The science of “Global warming” is not the real problem it is about using it to force policies without consideration of the concerns of the other side of the gap.
“There are some good points amongst the lack of understanding in this part of your comment.” Let me start by saying the only reason I read this book was because you recommended it. 99% of the books I read are “pulp fiction”. I am curious in what good points you found “amongst the lack of understanding part of my comments”?
Did the authors consider if the social modeled changed. A contributing factor to the gap may have been that since the 60s the science illiterates have changed. Up until the 70s the culture was based on a command and control, a top down, a royalty structure, expertise based authority. In the 70s the structure moved to an individual authority, republic on the work floor, a democracy in the home. That change has meant people feel more able to make their own decisions and need to be sold on change.
“But the other parties also have to want to learn.” Not if you want change. Who do you think the more valuable instructor, the one that presents the information so it is easy to deliver or the one that presents it so it is easy to understand? Which is larger the number “scientists” or science illiterates? Who do you think is more important to closing the gap?
“Yes, but it's unclear to me what point you are trying to make by mentioning them.” If you notice during this conversation I have had a single message, but presented it in many different ways. Your message has been consistent, the listener has to change. How many different ways have you presented it?
Communication is effective when it matches the audience’s needs. Do you recall a plastic wrap commercial where they wrapped a piece of steak and tossed it to a tiger?
You described motives for seeking ignorance. And I believe my understanding of the audience is greater than you give me credit for. What you seem to be forgetting is the responsibility of the audience.
When you focus of blogs and the talking heads you are focusing on a tiny segment and you play to them. Communication needs to be about effectiveness.
Blogs and talking heads are where most people seem to get their information these days, and the sources they cite most often for their views. This doesn't relieve individuals from taking responsibility for critical thinking and logic. That is what makes communication effective.
Why do you think the listener will change? The listener doesn’t change until they come to accept what is being presented, and they won’t accept that until it is presented in a way that fits their rationality.
Scientist: The sky is blue.
Listener: But Tony said oranges are indigenous to Africa.
Get it? This isn't about listeners "changing" their minds based on understanding of factual information. This is about listeners being honest with themselves and the information. Scientists don't need listeners to agree with them, they just need them to stop lying about the facts and/or believing the absolute illogical nonsense that others with no scientific knowledge tell them. It's about listeners admitting that a brain surgeon is likely to give them better advice than a plumber when it comes to how to do brain surgery. It's about critical thinking. If listeners can demonstrate critical thinking, then a scientist isn't going to care what position a listener takes. But it has to start with acknowedging facts.
You’re right, and it is easier to push a rope than pull it, it is easier to whip a horse than lead it, it is easy to get kids to do something by yelling at them than by enticing them.
And if the horse plops itself down on the road refusing to budge, pushing, pulling or whipping isn't going to change that. The listener has to want to learn. But come on, Duane, stop spouting platitudes and idioms that you think convey meaning when all they do is reiterate what you've said many times already - you think it is 100% the fault of scientists for not communicating effectively. That's just not true. A scientist will state a well recognized scientific fact (the sky is blue), and some people out there will say something ridiculous like the scientist is only saying the sky is blue because he wants to tax Americans to death. He'll then cite some blog written by a guy who puts "Rocket Scientist" prominently at the top of his resume but never studied rocket science, never did rocket science, and never did any research in the science that he claims to be refuting in his blog.
You tell me where the problem is here.
“And why the public needs to be intellectually honest with themselves and others.” Do you realize how difficult that is?
It's not difficult at all, Duane. Not at all. Why do you think it is difficult to be intellectually honest? Remember, we're not talking about every American becoming experts in every different field of study (climate science, plumbing, brain surgery, painting, etc). All we're talking about is using logic, common sense and some critical thinking. You don't have to be an expert to be engaged, but you do have to be an expert if you want to tell the sum total of all experts who study a field that they are wrong.
Furthermore, being intellectually honest means you don't deny the science just because you don't like the policy options being discussed. For example, climate change is real and of great concern. We must do something about it. Possible options include cap-and-trade, carbon taxes, doing nothing, banning automobiles, and many others. Some of these are not preferred and may not work. Honesty would focus on deciding which should go and which should be tried. Dishonesty is saying climate change doesn't exist because you don't want to make the tough decision of what to do about it.
The science of “Global warming” is not the real problem it is about using it to force policies without consideration of the concerns of the other side of the gap.
And this is a good example of not being intellectually honest, as I've just discussed. Your objection to the science is that it will be used in discussions of policy options you don't like. So deal with the policy option choices honestly, not deny the science because you don't want to deal with its ramifications.
Let me start by saying the only reason I read this book was because you recommended it. 99% of the books I read are “pulp fiction”. I am curious in what good points you found “amongst the lack of understanding part of my comments”?
I'm glad that you were encouraged to read the book. I found it very worthwhile. I believe I mentioned the good points you made.
Did the authors consider if the social modeled changed. A contributing factor to the gap may have been that since the 60s the science illiterates have changed. Up until the 70s the culture was based on a command and control, a top down, a royalty structure, expertise based authority. In the 70s the structure moved to an individual authority, republic on the work floor, a democracy in the home. That change has meant people feel more able to make their own decisions and need to be sold on change.
I don't think the authors focused much on the changes in the social model, though obviously it is inherent in some of the discussions. Most of their book looks at the interaction with different segments of society, and as relevant social model changes are mentioned. It would be interesting to reread the book with that thought in mind.
Duane, I'm not sure if I teased the following out of your comment correctly, as your habit of essentially merging my comments with your own into one mass is painful to extract the new information. But I think this is what you said:
“But the other parties also have to want to learn.” Not if you want change. Who do you think the more valuable instructor, the one that presents the information so it is easy to deliver or the one that presents it so it is easy to understand? Which is larger the number “scientists” or science illiterates? Who do you think is more important to closing the gap?
Again, this seems like you are putting the entire responsibility for communication gaps on the scientists and none on the listeners. As I've said many times already, a scientist can explain that the sky is blue all he wants - from "the sky is blue" to a dissertation length discourse on the physics of wavelength and atmospheric scattering at the subatomic level - and it wouldn't make any difference if the listener says "but Tommy the blogger says you only say that so you can get grant money."
Who do you think is more important to closing the gap?
While clearly scientists have to find a way to relate better to non-scientists, your comments emphasize just how important it is for the non-scientist listeners to be intellectually honest. Not experts themselves. Just honest. Which means not saying the scientists are wrong when they (the listener) don't even understand basic scientific concepts. It means not taking every news flash on cable TV as "science" and then decrying science because cable TV the next night seems to say the opposite. That is a problem with the media, not the science (i.e., the media loves controversy and every science report is a "breakthrough" when in reality every science report is merely one more brick in a very large brick wall). In other words, the public has to understand how science works better and stop thinking only from their own point of view.
It's a two way street. And in this country, we all have a responsibility to participate in an informed manner.
I apologize for the length of my remarks, but you bring up so many valuable points I want to discuss.
“What you seem to be forgetting is the responsibility of the audience.” As long as you hold that view you will not get your message across. If the point of the discussion is closing the “gap” then what is so important about waiting until the other party wants to change, to take responsibility.
“Blogs and talking heads are where most people seem to get their information these days” The blogs are who you are competing with not who you want to reach.
“And if the horse plops itself down on the road refusing to budge, pushing, pulling or whipping isn't going to change that.” If the horse doesn’t respond to being lead than you offer it water, then an apple, then sugar. You keep looking for something that will draw it forward. If all the whipping of the horse doesn’t get it up, is the final solution shooting it?
“you think it is 100% the fault of scientists for not communicating effectively.” It is not about fault it is about effectiveness. If the focus is on blame then change will never happen.
“You tell me where the problem is here.” The facts are that scientists and the science illiterates are both human, they have the same flaws and the same abilities, they prefer to stay in their comfort zone, leaving it is difficult. Everyone makes judgments with or without sufficient data. Emotion can be a powerful factor in making judgments, it can override rationality. The government and the politician epitomize all of this. They are the least consistent, and their inconsistency is the most visible. The “scientists” have to realize that it isn’t personal it is about all the parties involved. These are some of the realities, they can be barriers, but they are not the problem. The problems are whatever issue is at hand and the policies associated with it.
“It's not difficult at all, Duane.” If being intellectually honest were easy the vast majority of people would do it. The fact is we look first at others for what doesn’t work rather than ourselves. Think about yourself; throughout this discussion have questioned yourself about why I have failed to accept your answers as the answers? I have and that is why I keep trying new approaches. The forces to drive honest self assessment are rare so why would you think it is easy. When and how did you learn to work at making honest self assessment, it surely wasn’t intuitive?
“It's about listeners admitting that a brain surgeon is likely to give them better advice than a plumber when it comes to how to do brain surgery.” The issue for the patient may not be about the surgery but about surviving after surgery. Maybe the plumber has survived and the surgeon looses interest after the surgery is completed. The better the surgeon understands the patient’s concerns the better they can frame the answer to help make a better recovery.
“some people out there will say something ridiculous like the scientist is only saying the sky is blue because he wants to tax Americans to death.” So “some people” is what drives your view of the science illiterates. Have you ever heard of a “scientists” that took extreme views, do you think all “scientists” should be look at as if they had taken the same views? I recall a Nobel Lauriat in Physics that had some extreme views on genetics.
“Furthermore, being intellectually honest means you don't deny the science just because you don't like the policy options being discussed.” Being intellectually honest would recognize that science illiterates have not been trained to think they way “scientists” have so the need is to accommodate their way of thinking. The reality is that the science illiterates have heard from “scientists” for all of their life that in one manner or another the world will end. And yet none of those “scientific” claims have proven to be right.
“Your objection to the science is that it will be used in discussions of policy options you don't like.” I take exception here, I have not objected to the science I have simply tried to better understand it, being a science illiterate. I feel that “green house gas” effect is a good slogan but doesn’t seem to be a good model for explaining the how the atmosphere is warming.
“this seems like you are putting the entire responsibility for communication gaps on the scientists and none on the listeners.” I am putting the responsibility on whoever wants the gap to narrow. If the authors, you, or I want the “gap” to narrow then it is our responsibility to figure out how to communicate so the listeners better understand what is being presented.
“Who do you think is more important to closing the gap?” I believe it is the science illiterate that is most important to closing the “gap” because they are the ones that can have the most impact by their sheer numbers. That is why I feel it is so important to figure out how to communicate to them effectively.
“It means not taking every news flash on cable TV as "science" and then decrying science because cable TV the next night seems to say the opposite.” It means providing the news flashes and repeating those flashes in different ways. It is about giving a face to “scientists” so the science illiterates can relate. I don’t mean a single person like Sagan was, I mean an array of people that are willing to step forward and be seen answering question from science illiterate and not talking down to people. I don’t see it as who problem it is, the point is trying to address it by whoever can.
“It's a two way street. And in this country, we all have a responsibility to participate in an informed manner.” I believe that we all have responsibilities and that we should each be expected to live with the consequence or our choices. That is not the reality today. If you want change you have to figure a way to lead that change. You may feel that science and its conclusions are intuitively obvious, but that is based on your training not everyone else’s.
“What you seem to be forgetting is the responsibility of the audience.” As long as you hold that view you will not get your message across. If the point of the discussion is closing the “gap” then what is so important about waiting until the other party wants to change, to take responsibility.
Your view throughout has been that the only ones who have any responsibility in communication in this are the scientists. Sorry, but that is a cop out. Here's why.
As I've said repeatedly, I have agreed with the book's premise that scientists need to work harder to understand the audience and to communicate on terms they can relate to, as well as listen closer to their concerns. I have said this repeatedly, yet in every one of your comments you say the same thing - that it is the responsibility of the scientist to close the gap, that the scientist needs to change, that it is all our fault that people don't get it.
Can you see the problem here? I have agreed with the need for scientists to be better communicators. And yet you completely ignore that and respond as if I hadn't said it and the book hadn't discussed it at length.
At the same time you completely ignore the public's own responsibilities. In your mind the only reason the public doesn't get it is because scientists are not explaining it right. The public has no responsibility for thinking logically, thinking critically, or even thinking.
Consider this scenario:
A brain surgeon explains the anatomy of a human brain and discusses why a bizarre growth on that brain is causing loss of comprehension and, occasionally, complete loss of consciousness.
A plumber explains how pipes are laid in an apartment building, and why having a plug in the middle of a discharge line is causing a huge pressure increase and, occasionally, complete loss of structural integrity (and a rather large stinky mess).
Now, the question is, who do you call to remove a tumor from your brain?
These are the logical thinking decisions we make every day.
Okay, now take the same scenario and this time the question is, who do you call to peel bananas?
Now, explain how that makes sense.
As a second example, take the following conversation:
Scientist: The sky is blue
Public: No it isn't.
Scientist: The sky is blue, as virtually everyone can see on a clear day.
Public: I don't like the color blue.
Scientist: The sky is blue because of the way light from the sun scatters as it passes through the atmosphere.
Public: You're just saying that because you're a liberal.
Scientist: The sky is blue because [goes into six hour long technical discussion about the physics of light waves, prismatic equilibrium, optical physiology, and cerebral biochemistry]
Public: I read on a blog that it is because the UN planetary agency (who are all a bunch of political lackeys) said Pluto isn't a planet anymore.
Scientist: The sky is blue
Public: You never provide anything to back up your claims, you just say that so you can tax us for clouds
Okay, now tell me how the scientist can better communicate the simple scientific concept that "the sky is blue."
“Your view throughout has been that the only ones who have any responsibility in communication in this are the scientists.”
You are right, it based on who has the most desire for change and who has the most knowledge to lead the change. The “scientists”, at least you, want change. Who has the knowledge that can best help the larger group? What does the science illiterates offer? They don’t have the desire for change, they don’t have an exceptional knowledge base, all they offer would be the ability to use the knowledge. Who do you think is most able to lead change, because change needs to be lead?
Consider it like a researcher seeking funding from a foundation for a new research project, the foundation has the money and wants to do good with it but doesn’t know which project to fund. The research needs to develop a presentation that allows the foundation to see the merits of the research in a positive light compared to the other requests. In many case the foundation doesn’t have the same knowledge base as the researcher so they will not intuitively see the value, they need to have their knowledge level raised to a point where they can appreciate what the research has to offer.
“I have agreed with the need for scientists to be better communicators.”
I believe it is about the effectiveness of communication. The authors said the “scientist” needed to take communications classes they did not talk about how to approach the science illiterates or how to determine why the science illiterates are not accepting the message, or even what the science illiterate are looking for. You mentioned it is about the terms or words used, the words are right they are simply being developed based on the comfort of the presenter rather than the receptiveness of the audience.
“Now, the question is, who do you call to remove a tumor from your brain?”
Every day the science illiterates turn to the “scientist” for help. They turn on the weather, they turn on a computer, they do this at a level that is functionally in their comfort zone. They do it where it has been shown to satisfy a recognized need. They have to be shown the need for and how to use the science.
“Okay, now take the same scenario and this time the question is, who do you call to peel bananas?”
Presuming I have been taught to eat a banana and not how to peel one then I ask the person who last peeled one for me. If I have never eaten a banana why would I need to peel it?
“Scientist: The sky is blue
Public: No it isn't.”
As a science illiterate why should I care if the sky is blue, will having that knowledge help me in my day to day activities? Why does the “scientist” care if the science illiterate accepts if the sky is blue?
There may be real value in the science illiterate understand about light wavelengths and how they reflect and we use the color give us a way to discern that information. The “scientist” might use the blue sky as a means to explain all of this. However, if it isn’t presented in a way that provides value to the listener it will be ignored or the listener will turn to whoever does provide perceived value.
Do you recall the question about the plastic wrap and the tiger?
You are right, it based on who has the most desire for change and who has the most knowledge to lead the change. The “scientists”, at least you, want change. Who has the knowledge that can best help the larger group? What does the science illiterates offer? They don’t have the desire for change, they don’t have an exceptional knowledge base, all they offer would be the ability to use the knowledge. Who do you think is most able to lead change, because change needs to be lead? (Duane B)
This was answered by my previous comment. The part that starts with "As a second example" and ends with "Okay, now tell me how the scientist can better communicate the simple scientific concept that "the sky is blue."
I believe it is about the effectiveness of communication.
Ditto
“Now, the question is, who do you call to remove a tumor from your brain?”
Every day the science illiterates turn to the “scientist” for help. They turn on the weather, they turn on a computer, they do this at a level that is functionally in their comfort zone. They do it where it has been shown to satisfy a recognized need. They have to be shown the need for and how to use the science.
It's more immediate than this. Literally. People want to know the weather immediately, so they check the weather even though they understand it might not be always entirely accurate (and in fact assume it is much less accurate than it actually is). People call the brain surgeon because a tumor could kill them (more or less) immediately (or in the foreseeable future). People turn on the computer because that is how we communicate these days. But people don't trust climate scientists because they don't see how it will immediately affect them. Which is why the denialists get so much traction from the "global warming is a hoax" hoax. People don't want to deal with anything that they don't perceive to be having an immediate effect on their lives.
“Okay, now take the same scenario and this time the question is, who do you call to peel bananas?”
Presuming I have been taught to eat a banana and not how to peel one then I ask the person who last peeled one for me. If I have never eaten a banana why would I need to peel it?
Why would you presume that you have been taught to eat a banana but not peel one? And your question "If I have never eaten a banana why would I need to peel it?" presumes you would never eat a banana. Why would you presume that?
“Scientist: The sky is blue
Public: No it isn't.”
As a science illiterate why should I care if the sky is blue, will having that knowledge help me in my day to day activities? Why does the “scientist” care if the science illiterate accepts if the sky is blue?
You've completely bypassed the entire point. And illustrated it by doing so. The conversation as presented didn't have to be scientist and public, it could be person A and person B. Person A is clearly attempting in many different ways, from basic to quite comprehensive, to communicate a concept that can legitimately be understood either at the basic or the more comprehensive level, as fits the circumstance. But person B isn't listening to any of the attempted explanations. So, how can person A communicate with person B if person B isn't listening (or even thinking)?
Why does the “scientist” care if the science illiterate accepts if the sky is blue?
This may very well be the crux of the entire conversation. In truth, the scientist doesn't need for the science illiterate to accept that the sky is blue. He just needs the science illiterate to stop telling the scientists that they are wrong when clearly the science illiterate does not have the knowledge necessary to pass any judgment on the matter.
I apologize for not respinding in a timely manner. No excuse, I simply overlooked this.
"This may very well be the crux of the entire conversation. In truth, the scientist doesn't need for the science illiterate to accept that the sky is blue." I agree this maybe the crux of the problem.
It isn't about being told the sky is blue, it is about explaining why it is blue and how that affects me so the "sceince illiterate" can see how it affects them and how they can affect it.
The impression that everything about "global warming" is so complex that only "scientists" can understand it creates a barrier of distrust. I may not be able to do what my doctor does but he is willing to explain it to me so I can be part of the solution.
Agreed. See my prior explanations about how scientists could explain it a million different ways but it will never be heard if the listener has his ears covered with his hands.
The impression that everything about "global warming" is so complex that only "scientists" can understand it creates a barrier of distrust. I may not be able to do what my doctor does but he is willing to explain it to me so I can be part of the solution.
And scientists are willing to explain it to you so you can be part of the solution, and have done so many times. You just have to remove your hands from your ears and think.
Have you seen this from the article from the new "Superfreakonomics" author?
It doesn't deny the "greenhouse gases" and "global warming" and man being the culprit, it simply offers an alternative solution. What are your thoughts?
http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/23/the-superfreakonomics-global-warming-fact-quiz/
I guess I am naive, rather than focus on than focus on the CO2 I was wondering about the idea that SO2 can create a point of for water vapor to condense and create clouds. Unless I overed looked something all the dicsussion was about the book and the arguement about CO2.
I keep hearing that H20 is a "greenhouse gas", it is in much higher concentrations (25% or so), and when it forms clouds or even ice it is very reflective and will reduce the light pentrating to earth. Is this credible or simply wishful thinking?
If it is true, the is their proposal of generation/seeding clouds a plausible interim action until redcuing CO2 has an effect?
It seems there is alot of discussion about our already crossing the tipping point or that it will take longer to slow and then counter the current warming, ar eyou aware of any other ideas being proposed to begin some form of interim mitigation to at least give some breathing room untill the CO2 reducitons will have an impact? Is it simply reduce CO2 or nothing?
If it is true, the is their proposal of generation/seeding clouds a plausible interim action until redcuing CO2 has an effect?
No, it isn't a plausible option at the moment. Besides, to believe in geoengineering you have to believe in our ability to control climate, right? You also would have to mobilize public opinion, legislative action, and come up with the multiple billions of dollars needed to make such a thing work on a global scale.
Or we can do what we already have the technology to do and stop it from happening in the first place.
"You also would have to mobilize public opinion, legislative action, and come up with the multiple billions of dollars needed to make such a thing work on a global scale." Isn;t that what the whole effort about curtailng CO2 emissons is all about?
"But percent composition in the environment doesn't determine the relative importance of impact, concentrations and GHG potency do. " That changes the whole idea that I learned about weather cycles and how water transfers energy around the globe.
It seems to me that I keep hearing about the cap & trade, the conversion to alternative energy sources, and other efforts to redcue the atmospheric CO2 will take genrations to significantly redcue the CO2. And some are syaing we have crossed the tipping point and were too late. Both points of view would seem to suggest that we should be at least reseaerching some intermitate actions that could buy time untill the CO2 is reduce.
If SO2 does as a method for seeding and at least hear in Michigan clouds do have a way of keeping us cooler in summer and warmer in winter that the states to the west that don;t have the clouds.
No.
Sure, you have to mobilize public opinion and legislative action. But reducing our CO2 emissions now can be done with technologies that exist now. No need to wait until many decades later we come up with some new technology to change climate after we've screwed it up even more (and perhaps beyond repair). We have the technology to act now. And it can be done that reduces costs, improves profitability of innovative companies, and creates jobs. All we need to do is get our heads out of our butts and act.
"But percent composition in the environment doesn't determine the relative importance of impact, concentrations and GHG potency do. " That changes the whole idea that I learned about weather cycles and how water transfers energy around the globe.
I have no idea what you learned about how water transfers energy around the globe. But that's not what we're talking about anyway. We're talking about the ability of excess CO2 to change the balance of heat transfer in the upper atmosphere. Consider this - methane is 20 times more powerful as a greenhouse gas as CO2, but methane is a much smaller percentage of the atmosphere so CO2 actually has more effect. Same with water vapor, there is much more of it in the atmosphere but it has a feedback effect, whereas CO2 has a forcing effect.
It seems to me that I keep hearing about the cap & trade, the conversion to alternative energy sources, and other efforts to redcue the atmospheric CO2 will take genrations to significantly redcue the CO2.
Obviously it doesn't happen overnight, but we can start now with what we have. Versus making believe that some breakthrough technology 50 years from now will miraculously appear and somehow reverse what we've done to the planet in that 50 years of denial.
And some are syaing we have crossed the tipping point and were too late.
Too late for what?
Both points of view would seem to suggest that we should be at least reseaerching some intermitate actions that could buy time untill the CO2 is reduce.
You have it backwards. We need to reduce CO2 emissions now to buy us time to come up with technologies to deal with increasing CO2. And we can do it now, if only people would stop denying the reality. The more they delay, the bigger the problem. It would be like watching your bathtub overflow and staring at it while you think about how you might some day clean up the continuing water flow onto the floor (and the floors below), when all you have to do is turn off the tap.
“But reducing our CO2 emissions now can be done with technologies that exist now.” Are you suggesting that it wouldn’t take billions to build the alternative energy sources to replace carbon based fuels?
“I have no idea what you learned about how water transfers energy around the globe.” I always thought that one of the key weather modifiers of the atmosphere was the water, it absorbed energy, it transferred energy, providing an insulating barrier to energy, reflecting energy, and it moves from one location from another, it has a significant impact on the earth’s weather by how it impacts the earth’s energy system. If the primary issue with CO2 is that it reflects the energy back to earth, isn’t it also true that cloud reflect sunlight away from the earth?
“Obviously it doesn't happen overnight, but we can start now with what we have.” If the impact of reducing CO2 won’t happen overnight then why shouldn’t we be investigating methods to mitigate the current warming trend? If we could create a layer of clouds that would increase a barrier to sunlight striking the earth wouldn’t that slow global warming?
“Too late for what?” The current CO2 levels have exceed the point where reducing them would stop the temperature rising cycle due to the CO2 levels, the temperature rise is on unstoppable path to cataclysmic impact.
“It would be like watching your bathtub overflow and staring at it while you think about how you might some day clean up the continuing water flow onto the floor (and the floors below), when all you have to do is turn off the tap.” It would be like baling the water from the tub while you are digging to the water shutoff value that is buried out by the road. It will take a while to dig down to the to shut it off, but while the digging is going on you can dip the water into the toilet so less overflows the tub.
In addition to what I've already explained, I'm suggesting that it will take billions to adapt to not doing anything when clearly the science indicates we are already late to act. If you fix a leaky faucet it will cost you a little; if you let it drip until one day it breaks completely and starts gushing huge amounts of water uncontrollably it will cost you a lot. That's if you can fix it at all.
I always thought that one of the key weather modifiers of the atmosphere was the water, it absorbed energy, it transferred energy, providing an insulating barrier to energy, reflecting energy, and it moves from one location from another, it has a significant impact on the earth’s weather by how it impacts the earth’s energy system. If the primary issue with CO2 is that it reflects the energy back to earth, isn’t it also true that cloud reflect sunlight away from the earth?
Of course all processes work in balance, and no one said they didn't. That's what we're talking about, tipping the earth's atmosphere off it's balance. It doesn't take more than a little touch to tip a spinning top off its balance and send it wobbling and crashing.
If the impact of reducing CO2 won’t happen overnight then why shouldn’t we be investigating methods to mitigate the current warming trend? If we could create a layer of clouds that would increase a barrier to sunlight striking the earth wouldn’t that slow global warming?
Because your solution is to ignore the leaky faucet until maybe one day you will figure out how to stop the gushing water that has started because you ignored the problem for so long. Why not fix the problem before it becomes too big to fix? That doesn't mean we can't also be doing research on these other mitigation options you mention, but it would be foolhardy to not use the knowledge and technology we have today on the fantasy that 50 or 100 years from now we will have discovered and implemented something that will fix the mess we let happen in the interim.
The current CO2 levels have exceed the point where reducing them would stop the temperature rising cycle due to the CO2 levels, the temperature rise is on unstoppable path to cataclysmic impact.
So your suggestion is to not do anything and let the problem keep getting worse? Besides, your declaration is overly simplistic and inaccurate. There is a time lag between reducing emissions and reducing CO2 in the atmosphere. If we shut off the faucet filling the bathtub the bathtub will still have the water in it that was there before, until we pull the stopper and start draining it. Your solution seems to be to keep the faucet running and the stopper in because some day we will be able to use a mop to clean up the water now filling the house.
It would be like baling the water from the tub while you are digging to the water shutoff value that is buried out by the road. It will take a while to dig down to the to shut it off, but while the digging is going on you can dip the water into the toilet so less overflows the tub.
This is not what you are suggesting. In fact, what you are suggesting is exactly backwards from what you just said in this piece above. You are suggesting we wait until we develop some new technology that will somehow reverse everything we've let happen while we were developing the new technology. You have offered no "bailing the water from the tub." What you suggest is "bailing" with a conceptual idea for a bucket that as yet doesn't hold any water.
Furthermore, your "while you are digging to the water shutoff valve that is buried in the road" is exactly what the cap-and-trade and other policy options is attempting to do. The goal is to shut off the constant stream of CO2 emissions, i.e., stop the flow. And by the way, the smart companies are already doing this and outcompeting the dinosaur industries that don't want to change.
I am not comfortable with you analogy of the leaking facet so I added to it. I will say that the shut-off value for water to the house is buried in the front yard and the leak is creating a sheet of ice on the driveway/front walk to include the details in effect in responding to the discovery of the leak much like the delay of impact we would get if CO2 emissions were stop today.
With the leaking faucet the first thing you do is try to mitigate the effect of the dripping water because if you ignore the effect it has things will create a bigger problem even when you have stopped the leak. You start by figuring out what the damage will be and think how to slow or stop the damage. If the leak is spreading outside and changing to ice it is creating a slipping hazard that could injure the person going to work on the leak and it can be getting in to cracks and breaking up the concrete (once the level of CO2 in the atmosphere reached a point of causing the earth to warm it is most likely the earth will continue to warm until the CO2 level has been reduced, it will stay there long after the leak has stopped). You get bucket to catch the water or consider connecting a hose to the faucet to divert the water to a safer place (you investigate ways to capture the existing CO2), and you start attacking the problem the water/ice causing (look at ways to slow the sun energy from striking earth) by applying salt to melt the ice. Once you have slowed the damage you start working on ways to fix the leak, finding/digging up the isolation valve to stop the water from getting to the leaking faucet, you pull the faucet out and repair/replace as needed (more efficient use of energy, new sources of energy). If you don’t mitigate the damage of the leak early it can be so severe that the driveway, sidewalk, even the building foundation maybe irreparable and have to be totally replaced.
In the case of CO2 effort, everything in the media (public consciousness), is focused on stopping the release of CO2 and no regard for mitigating the damage of what has already leaked or controlling what is currently leaking. I will say if we are fast approaching the point where the damage is irreparable, or the leak repair takes too long to avoid irreparable damage, it would seem we should be making a visible effort to mitigate what has been released and will remain in place until long after we have stop releasing CO2.
If the elimination of CO2 released will cost in the Trillions than why not spend a couple of hundred Billion to try to mitigate the damage now buying time for the permanent fix to work? I am aware that at least the power companies are working on ways to remove and capture future CO2 emissions, but what effort is being done or what effort is being to enlist the public support for mitigation efforts.
It is nice to have decided on a solution that will take untold years to impact the growing problem, but if it is at the expense of buying time for that solution to work what is the value of the solution?
I admit this is an environmentally unacceptable analogy, but it is only an analogy. When you are in the middle of a swamp full of aggressive alligators and your mission is to empty the swamp, what good is emptying the swamp if won’t be there to benefit from draining the swamp. You need expend some effort to fight off the alligators so you can survive to empty the swamp and gain the benefits.
I'm afraid that analogies only work when taken broadly. The more details you add the more it loses any value as an analogy. Remember, we aren't really talking about leaking faucets, we're talking about CO2 and climate change.
With the leaking faucet the first thing you do is try to mitigate the effect of the dripping water because if you ignore the effect it has things will create a bigger problem even when you have stopped the leak.
Yes, this is what I said. But it isn't consistent with what you said. Rather than mitigating the dripping water (by shutting off the tap or fixing the leak), you suggest we let it drip while we bail out the sink. The former is mitigation, the latter is clean up. Why wait until the mess is in need of clean up when you can mitigate now?
You start by figuring out what the damage will be and think how to slow or stop the damage.
No. That is backwards. You start out by determine how to stop the damage from getting worse, then you assess how bad it is. This is akin to deciding how much damage you think the cap-and-trade bill will cause to your balance sheet, then determining how best to minimize the damage to your bottom line. Sorry, that's not how it works. You must deal with the fact that the faucet is leaking now, not wait until it gets so bad that it takes a lot more effort (and money) to fix everything that got messed up while you were not acting.
If the leak is spreading outside and changing to ice it is creating a slipping hazard that could injure the person going to work on the leak and it can be getting in to cracks and breaking up the concrete (once the level of CO2 in the atmosphere reached a point of causing the earth to warm it is most likely the earth will continue to warm until the CO2 level has been reduced, it will stay there long after the leak has stopped).
We've already reached this point.
You get bucket to catch the water or consider connecting a hose to the faucet to divert the water to a safer place (you investigate ways to capture the existing CO2), and you start attacking the problem the water/ice causing (look at ways to slow the sun energy from striking earth) by applying salt to melt the ice.
No. Again, that's backwards. You shut off the tap and fix the leaky faucet now. We have the technology now to do this. Why wait decades for some fantasy technological fix when we already know how to do it?
In the case of CO2 effort, everything in the media (public consciousness), is focused on stopping the release of CO2 and no regard for mitigating the damage of what has already leaked or controlling what is currently leaking.
When the faucet is pouring water into a full tub, doesn't it make more sense to first turn off the faucet? Or do you get a mop for the floor while water is still pouring over the edge of the tub?
If the elimination of CO2 released will cost in the Trillions than why not spend a couple of hundred Billion to try to mitigate the damage now buying time for the permanent fix to work?
You've said the same thing several times. The answer is the same. First, turn off the tap. Second, empty the tub (or at least drop the water level so it doesn't continue to spill onto the floor). Third, get a mop.
It is nice to have decided on a solution that will take untold years to impact the growing problem, but if it is at the expense of buying time for that solution to work what is the value of the solution?
And yet you are offering nothing other than waiting for some miracle cure to appear in several decades time. How is this logical thinking?
When you are in the middle of a swamp full of aggressive alligators and your mission is to empty the swamp, what good is emptying the swamp if won’t be there to benefit from draining the swamp. You need expend some effort to fight off the alligators so you can survive to empty the swamp and gain the benefits.
I would suppose you could ask yourself why you feel that the alligators and the other animals and plants in the swamp don't have a right to continue living peacefully in the swamp? You could also remind yourself that most of the flooding in New Orleans occurred because we decided to put a city in the middle of a swamp (i.e., gain the benefits) and thus reduce the benefit that was already there (i.e., protection from severe storms, nurseries for myriad animals, a balanced ecosystem, etc.).
I apologize for my limited abilities and lack of expertise.
Conceptually, t simply stopping the source of the problem does not stop the problem. If the problem is global warming and CO2 is the source then stopping the CO2 emissions does not stop the warming. It may reduce the rate of rise, but if sufficient CO2 was there to create the rise then the rise will continue until the level of CO2 is reduced.
“you suggest we let it drip while we bail out the sink.” I was not talking about letting the leak continue, I was trying to show that even when the leak stops the damage continues, and the longer we delay addressing the damage the risk is that even though the leak has stop the damage will continue and overwhelm us.
If all the “scientists” are right and CO2 has caused the warming then there is already sufficient CO2 in the atmosphere to continue the warming even if we stopped all CO2 being emitted today.
“We've already reached this point.” If you are saying it is too late then why shouldn’t we turn our attentions to adjusting to the new world, just as nature has done for all of history?
I again I apologize for my lack of ability, I had hope the acknowledgement of being environmentally in correct that that would allow getting past the literal implications and accepted the alligators we a metaphor for the rising melting ice and rising oceans and the draining the swamp was for the rising temperature. When I first heard that scenario it was to used to understand how we can have too narrow a focus and need to look both at the broad issues and the individual ones because you can’t ignore either.
As regards the balancing of the environment by water, why not consider ways to use the water mechanism to mitigate the CO2 impact?
“So your suggestion is to not do anything and let the problem keep getting worse?” I don’t recall ever suggesting not to do anything. My approach it to good sustainable practices that minimize waste (including development of other than fossil fuel resources for energy) and consider other approaches to mitigate the current problem.
“In fact, what you are suggesting is exactly backwards from what you just said in this piece above.” There is no point to suggest anything when THE answer has been decided on. Before new ideas are worth offering there needs to be an acceptance that new ideas are needed. Conceptually people have to acknowledge that interim mitigation efforts are needed before ideas will be considered. Your dismissing (Of course all processes work in balance, and no one said they didn't. in other words it is obvious thus there is no reason to feel it can be used to help) of the affect water has on the ecosystem and global temperature there will be no effort put forth to explore it.
I also would like to see a discussion about the consequence if everything rides on the CO2 solution and we have to wait for generations before it has a noticeable impact, the warming stabilizes and then reverses. The ideas follow the needs, until there is a perceived need for mitigation efforts there will be no ideas. As long as there is no discussion about the real time impact on day to day living it will not be a personal problem. The vast majority of the continent will not be affected by a few feet rise in ocean levels.
Good. Then we agree that CO2 needs to be reduced. We agree that sustainable energy is a necessity.
There is no point to suggest anything when THE answer has been decided on.
No. What is really happening is that you are dismissing the one answer that we all know is the most immediate and doable and effective way of moving forward. Why dismiss it?
Your dismissing (Of course all processes work in balance, and no one said they didn't. in other words it is obvious thus there is no reason to feel it can be used to help) of the affect water has on the ecosystem and global temperature there will be no effort put forth to explore it.
No, you have dismissed what scientists say is the best immediate option in favor of some conceptually specious idea that we can simply "create clouds" and therefore need to do nothing about CO2.
The vast majority of the continent will not be affected by a few feet rise in ocean levels.
First off, that's not true at all. Imagine Kansas with tens of millions additional people living there because half of the US population now can't live on the coastlines (which is where the largest part of the population lives). Secondly, rising sea levels are only one part of the potential problems. Excess heat and dryness will be a problem in most areas. Like Kansas. So much for growing corn and wheat. Thirdly, we're not just talking about the US where we generally run toward affluence. We're talking about the whole world, most of which does not have the resources we do. Consider again New Orleans. The wealthy and middle class that had cars and second houses inland were all fine. The poor, who lived in the most vulnerable locations below sea level and protected only by the levees, had no means of getting out of town or any place to go. Much of the world is akin to the 9th ward in New Orleans.
“Then we agree that CO2 needs to be reduced. We agree that sustainable energy is a necessity.” If I recall accurately I have said early and often that I feel using fossil fuels for energy is wasteful and we should be doing whatever we can to reduce, replace, and conserve.
“you have dismissed what scientists say is the best immediate option in favor of some conceptually specious idea that we can simply "create clouds" and therefore need to do nothing about CO2.” I believe that there should be parallel efforts rather than simply focusing on stopping the CO2 emissions. Why not work on reducing the emissions in conjunction with exploring ways to remove CO2 from the atmosphere, while working on ways to reduce the global warming (clouds just seem like one method that has the potential and could be easily removed once warming has been controlled).
“Imagine Kansas with tens of millions additional people living there because half of the US population now can't live on the coastlines (which is where the largest part of the population lives).” We have not heard of that in the media, they only talk of the water rising in New Orleans and they like you say don’t build in the flood plain. That is why I would like to hear a public discussion about the whole of the consequences rather than just the ice melting. I also recall mention that when I first entered Gather on this topic.
It seems to me that rather than using New Orleans which was built and rebuilt by choice, that Bangladesh would be a better example of what happens when the water rises and there is no way to stop it. By the same token it seems the Dutch are addressing living below sea level quite well. Bring up individual examples can be both a strength and a weakness in a discussion if the participants don’t look at whole of the issue and address the parts individually, in parallel and as a whole. There is no “silver bullet”, one answer reducing CO2 emissions/cap& trade, to an issue that would linger long after the single solution was applied. If CO2 is the sole cause of “global warming” then simply stopping the emissions will not stop it for millenniums because if your scenario drives everyone to Kansas there will not be sufficient nature means to remove and sequester the carbon before the world would have been forced to change to continue.
I have get to see success when only one issue with only one answer is offered.
In the case of "global warming" it appears there are the immideidate impact issues, the mitigation issues, the cause issues, and all we hear is the "cap & trade" solution.
I realize that the cap & trade is to drive other solutions, but won;t necessarily. Have you considered it people are simply willing to absorb the added cost?
Then we agree.
I believe that there should be parallel efforts rather than simply focusing on stopping the CO2 emissions. Why not work on reducing the emissions in conjunction with exploring ways to remove CO2 from the atmosphere, while working on ways to reduce the global warming (clouds just seem like one method that has the potential and could be easily removed once warming has been controlled).
There are parallel efforts. Lots of people are working on lots of mitigation options. But again, we need to turn off the tap. You seem to be focused on bailing without turning off the flow.
We have not heard of that in the media, they only talk of the water rising in New Orleans and they like you say don’t build in the flood plain. That is why I would like to hear a public discussion about the whole of the consequences rather than just the ice melting. I also recall mention that when I first entered Gather on this topic.
There has been considerable discussion of the other ramifications of climate change. Unf