From The American, by Kenneth P. Green and Hiwa Alaghebandian
Science is losing its credibility because it has adopted an authoritarian tone, and has let itself be co-opted by politics.
In a Wired article published at the end of May, writer Erin Biba bemoans the fact that “science” is losing its credibility with the public. The plunge in the public’s belief in catastrophic climate change is her primary example. Biba wonders whether the loss of credibility might be due to the malfeasance unearthed by the leak of emails from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom, but comes to the conclusion that malfeasance isn’t the cause of the public’s disaffection. No, people have turned against science simply because it lacks a good public relations outfit. Biba quotes Kelly Bush, head of a major PR firm, on the point:
Biba says researchers need a campaign that inundates the public with the message of science: Assemble two groups of spokespeople, one made up of scientists and the other of celebrity ambassadors. Then deploy them to reach the public wherever they are, from online social networks to “The Today Show.” Researchers need to tell personal stories, tug at the heartstrings of people who don’t have PhD’s. And the celebrities can go on “Oprah” to describe how climate change is affecting them—and by extension, Oprah’s legions of viewers.
“They need to make people answer the questions, What’s in it for me? How does it affect my daily life? What can I do that will make a difference? Answering these questions is what’s going to start a conversation,” Bush says. “The messaging up to this point has been ‘Here are our findings. Read it and believe.’ The deniers are convincing people that the science is propaganda.”
While nobody would dispute the value of a good PR department, we doubted that bad or insufficient PR was the primary reason for the public’s declining trust in scientific pronouncements. Our theory is that science is not losing its credibility because people no longer like or believe in the idea of scientific discovery, but because science has taken on an authoritarian tone, and has let itself be co-opted by pressure groups who want the government to force people to change their behavior.
In the past, scientists were generally neutral on questions of what to do. Instead, they just told people what they found, such as “we have discovered that smoking vastly increases your risk of lung cancer” or “we have discovered that some people will have adverse health effects from consuming high levels of salt.” Or “we have found that obesity increases your risk of coronary heart disease.” Those were simply neutral observations that people could find empowering, useful, interesting, etc., but did not place demands on them. In fact, this kind of objectivity was the entire basis for trusting scientific claims.
But along the way, an assortment of publicity-seeking, and often socially activist, scientists stopped saying, “Here are our findings. Read it and believe.” Instead, activist scientists such as NASA’s James Hansen, heads of quasi-scientific governmental organizations such as the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, editors of major scientific journals, and heads of the various national scientific academies are more inclined to say, “Here are our findings, and those findings say that you must change your life in this way, that way, or the other way.”
So, objective statements about smoking risk morphed into statements like “science tells us we must end the use of tobacco products.” A finding of elevated risk of stroke from excess salt ingestion leads to: “The science tells us we must cut salt consumption in half by 2030.” Findings that obesity carries health risks lead to a “war on obesity.” And yes, a finding that we may be causing the climate to change morphed into “the science says we must radically restructure our economy and way of life to cut greenhouse gas emissions radically by 2050.”
To see if our suspicions were correct, we decided to do a bit of informal research, checking Lexis Nexis for growth in the use of what we would categorize as “authoritarian” phrasing when it comes to scientific findings. We searched Nexis for the following phrases to see how their use has changed over the last 30 years: “science says we must,” “science says we should,” “science tells us we must,” “science tells us we should,” “science commands,” “science requires,” “science dictates,” and “science compels.”
What we found surprised us. One phrase, in particular, has become dramatically more frequent in recent years: “Science tells us we should.” Increased usage of this phrase leads to a chart resembling a steep mountain climb (or, for those with a mischievous bent, a “hockey stick”). The use of the phrase “science requires” also increases sharply over time. The chart (below) vividly shows the increasing use of those particular phrases. Some of this may simply reflect the general growth of media output and the growth of new media, but if that were the case, we would expect all of the terms to have shown similar growth, which they do not.
read more at: The American
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Eisenhower was right.
Hang on a few seconds, there, all you people who equate the scientific warmists with Creation scientists. Creation science is a defensive position against the overwhelming march of science and with it scientism. It does not have the massive funding of AGW science, and is not supported by any government. A lot of the most recent so-called Creation science 50 years ago would not have warranted any comment, because what it has come to encompass in the eyes of its critics is any scientist who might dare to say that God exists, or that he or she finds a place in his of her scientific understanding for a belief in God. Scientism as upheld by the likes of Richard Dawkins is more like the AGW extremists who call Lukewarmers ‘deniers’ – it is intolerant of any middle position.
Some of you commenters here on WUWT, while otherwise excellent, don’t seem to give any quarter to religion having a positive role in society, yet what this article betrays is the problem when there is no acknowledged role for an independent system of knowledge and values existing alongside the current dominant system. In the old days the secondary systems included humanism vs the dominant role of Christian religion in Western countries. The value given to humanism allowed a check-and-balance system to arise that enabled change and prevented the Church, contra our modern ‘understanding’ – i.e. the one promoted by the media – from having absolute power. What is there today that will stop a state-supported ‘religion’ of science, from being used for totalitarian ends? The media has no respect for religion, and this attitude has shaped the attitudes of the masses who do not generally try to find out more for themselves. Incidentally, modern media reportage on the religious history of Europe bears a lot in common with media reportage on climate science – it’s lazy and not too concerned about facts.
During the rise of Nazism, the Catholic Church was able to raise the alarm on the state-run euthanization program which targetted the disabled and deformed in Germany. Once any pretensions to a civil society ended due to the onset of the Second World War nothing could stop the state and science sponsored death camps.
The most notorious – Auschwitz-Birkenau – had a camp partially run by IG Farben, with scientists in agreement with the aims of this camp to produce BUNA rubber and synthetic gas for the reich, and other scientists carrying out human experimentation.
Although the sexual revolution has now replaced the old virtues (and with science is at the heart of the rejection of the Judeo-Christian religion), at least the lingering Judeo-Christian heritage is one of self-improvement and is based around the golden rule of treating others as you would have them treat you, and telling the truth. This is notably not being followed by the warmist scientists and their hangers-on (Algore) whose golden rule is ‘do as I say but not as I do.’
It’s worse than previously thought.
Trolls? C’mon, trolls?
Here trollee, trolllee, trollee, nice troll biscuits….
[sound of crickets]
Ah, well, perhaps tomorrow…
[throws troll biscuits away]
Ben says:
July 29, 2010 at 4:20 am
Did you do any spot-checks?
“Science requires” could form part of “Good science requires impartiality and a willingness to admit when wrong”, for example.
Well, Ben, science doesn’t require you —or anyone else— to do anything.
Rather, it is yourself whom is required to observe the rules of science.
Good science is nothing more or less than observing the rules, and not bending them to suit a political goal, theme, or whim.
It’s all very simple, really.
If politicians, civil servants, journalists, and scientists keep lying to the public, and on such a vast scale, eventually nobody will believe a word of what they are saying. That is the current crisis they are faced with on this issue.
Journalism, once known as a teller of truth and a bulwark against tyranny, was known as the 4th estate. Now it has morphed into the 5th column and has become a threat to our freedoms.
The press was once a magnificent lady. Now she is a malignant prostitute, spreading the lying propaganda disease to whatever she touches. That includes the BBC, The Guardian, The Independent, and the Royal Society.
How is this for an “authoritarian tone” – Taken from the UK JNCC website (Joint Nature Conservancy Committee – the strategy advisor to the UK Government)
=====================
Quote
“A little bit of climate science”
The science is unequivocal, most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations (IPCC (2007).
Climate is a complex science – many factors interact to determine climate (and day to day weather).
The observed changes in climate are happening relatively quickly i.e. decade to decade rather than over millennia.
The underlying trends in observed changes are not all linear: the changes observed usually go from less to more rapid rates of change.
Several drivers of change have been identified and anthropogenic drivers are major contributors.
‘Greenhouse gas’ production is the primary anthropogenic driver – chief among these is carbon dioxide.
Most greenhouse gas production comes from industrial processes, some also comes from agriculture and from changes in the way land and water are managed (removing trees, draining wetlands etc).
There are time lags in the system – the climate we are experiencing now has been influenced by anthropogenic inputs from roughly the middle of the 20th century; inputs since then will influence climate for years to come.
Projections about how climate is likely to change are based on models built using two strands of evidence: observed changes to date and the causal links between drivers and observed change.
To get detailed background on the science of climate, observed and projected climate change and the potential mechanisms available to reduce human impact on climate look at the literature produced by the IPCC and, for the UK, UKCIP and MCCIP”
End Quote
==============
So there you have it, the “official” and “unequivocal” view – littered with the usual assertions, the use of models and references to the IPCC etc. No wonder the credibility of science is suffering.
“Leif Svalgaard says:
July 29, 2010 at 4:09 am
“To make this statement, one should first have normalized each phrase to the same overall frequency which they have not been.”
Really, can’t we use common sense? I guess since you think you know all the solar outputs Leif you can make “true” statements about the sun. Doesn’t the fact that you do not understand gravity and magnetism bother you as you spout your “correct scientific” view of the solar cycle?
I see that most postings on this thread, when talking about science becoming a religion, is right on the mark, but I can see that no one, so far, has taken those points to the next step.
I don’t want to seen to be disrespectful here, but for one moment, put your beliefs to one side. The reason this scam is so successful is because the scammers have tapped into our cultural beliefs.
The scientists are only a means to and end and obviously bought off, so they should not be given all the blame. They were only paid to produced the tools others could use. I still believe many are guilty of fraud.
Our Western, “Christian”, culture is somewhat based in guilt and sacrifice. That is to say us mere mortals cannot aspire to being all knowing, and achieving the pinnacle of success. If we did, we would be as good as God, and our culture tells us that this cannot be.
The scammers have placed the scientists at the pinnacle, through propaganda, so the masses feel inferior, they are scientists, they have PhD’s and things, so what would we know. The guilt has now kicked in and the masses believe the scientists no matter what they say.
So, to pull off the second part of the scam, the scammers play another aspect of our culture, to be good, you must sacrifice ! This notion is deeply imbedded in our culture. Where do you start with this one ? If you tidy up your room you are good. Taught as a child. If you go out in the rain and cold to go to the store, you are good. And to do especially good, you can be killed on the battle front in war time and remembered as doing good. And to be sacrificed on the cross to save the world you are doing good. So what I am saying is that we believe that in giving up our time and comfort for a cause, we are doing good. The old saying, “making a sacrifice”.
That is what the scammers are playing on, we must sacrifice our whole way of life to save the world from climate change and do good, and they believe, most will feel good.
As I see it, the only way out of this mess is to be aware of what buttons, and what chains these scammers are pressing and pulling. Once we know and are aware, we cannot be beaten.
I think the rise of authoritarian science coincides with the Boomer generation of scientists. Many of my peers, while going into science, also look at the world through typical Boomer perspective taken from the late 60’s. i.e. science in service to a social agenda, not science in pursuit of the inner workings of nature.
Obviously not all of us follow that philosophy, but note the ages of those who lead the AGW agenda.
Not the least among the problems that “Science” has is writers like Erin Biba. The evidence suggests she is badly trained, too young to have a long view, thoroughly seduced by marketing hypnosis, and locked into the fallacy of “appeal to authority.” Looking to the cause of some of its problems for salvation is foolish because most people eventually get wise to the truth.
Personally, i sometimes do google news searches for phrases like “destruction of our planet”. Try it, it’s fun.
Just replace ‘Science’ with ‘God’ and we are back in the middle ages. Explains everything.
Anthony:
I find it ironic that you are now forecasting the role of science on the same timescale as others predict climate. If you look back in time at how people perceived science, there are periods in the past where science was authoritarian (and frequently wrong due to losing its humility) as well as periods where science falls into disrepute and is often referenced in a mocking fashion. The time period we are going through is, I think, just the natural downturn in the public’s perception. These periods are also very exciting because they allow science to shed its parasites and allow the emergence of new ideas. I don’t know the reasons for this natural variability (there must be many), only that it happens. So, embrace change and hopefully use this period for reform.
Random says:
July 29, 2010 at 4:23 am
Science tells us we must trust science. Trust science.
Science teaches scepticism. Be Sceptical.
This is an interesting and revealing study of authoritarian *reporting*, and note that it’s from Lexis Nexis which really doesn’t cover blogs and “new media.”
So this is actually an accurate chart of the state of decline in mainstream reporting, which indeed has become dramatically more leftist and “prescriptive” in the last decade or so.
So this is really a reaffirmation (and a decent one) that mainstream reporting and writing of all genres has gone waaayyyyy off the reservation and is being rejected by more and more people, not necessarily that *science* is being rejected. You can see that with the decline of formerly great publications like National Geo, Scientific American, Smithsonian, and many others, and all of which have taken the CAGW alarmist path, as well as promoting many other leftist ideals.
I don’t think anyone can honestly doubt that “science” has become increasingly authoritarian and politicised of late (or, if you prefer, that such misappropriation of the mantle of science has become more common). Seeking to quantify the phenomenon in this way is praiseworthy. However, even for this admittedly informal study, the authors should at least have attempted some sort of normalisation, say against the frequency of occurrence of the word “science” itself, and provided some sort of control comparison with anti-authoritarian statements (“science does not tell us we should…”) and neutral statements (eg., “scientific evidence suggests…”). Science demands no less! (And how should we characterise that statement, I wonder? 🙂 )
It is important to note that Arizonas latest attempts to stop global warming have been thwarted. Judge ruled that SB1070 is likely to go down constitutionally. This will likely cause the influx of more illegals from Mexico to migrate to the states. Thus supporting the global warming theory of border crossings associated with crop loss in mexico.
I just read a book on how the government lost the trust of the people through its long sordid history of exposed lies and deception. Now they wonder why people no longer have faith in their elected officials. They’re trying to talk their way out of a situation they behaved themselves into.
Substitute the word ‘science’ for ‘government’ in the above and you see the parallels.
Our devotion to proper “Science tells us we must” stop this trend immediately. “Science requires” vigorous application of the scientific method, and the scientific method of all “science dictates” that there should be transparency and communication of all data and conclusions. To change what this observation about trends in “science tells us, we should” all write a letter to our congressman and speak out. The word “Science commands” great respect in our culture and modern society, and it must never devolve into a priesthood. As more and more people look to see what “science says, we must” always ensure that the quality of the message is preserved. Our respect for, and the importance of, “science compels” us all to action.
If they need PR for their message, it is advertising. It is not science!
While the premise of the article may be correct, the example used is rife with weaknesses.
For one thing, the amount of publication material decreases dramatically as you back in time. Lexis Nexis is a fine service but does suffer from this architectural flaw.
This might not change the results, but objectively makes a difference.
Far more useful might be a percentage of documents using said terms rather than absolute values.
brad says:
July 29, 2010 at 3:45 am
Very interesting take, but I think it is the politicization of science that has led to this, thank Fox News, Rupert Murdoch and MSNBC where every fact is a political one, to be attacked and manipuilated for political gain – not analyzed and thought about.
___________________________________________________________
“Global Warming” and environmental science was politicizated by the left in 1972 – 1973. By Maurice Strong in his speech at the first Earth Summit and Holdren in his book. The people who are actually running the show are the very wealthy bankers and corporate presidents and CEOs. I just wish the left would finally wake up and understand how there are being manipulated by the very people the hate.
1972 – UN First Earth Summit: as Elaine Dewar wrote in Toronto’s Saturday Night magazine:
“It is instructive to read Strong’s 1972 Stockholm speech and compare it with the issues of Earth Summit 1992. Strong warned urgently about global warming, the devastation of forests, the loss of biodiversity, polluted oceans, the population time bomb. Then as now, he invited to the conference the brand-new environmental NGOs [non-governmental organizations]: he gave them money to come; they were invited to raise hell at home. After Stockholm, environment issues became part of the administrative framework in Canada, the U.S., Britain, and Europe.”
1973 book coauthored by Obama’s Science Czar, John Holdern
“A massive campaign [Global Warming] must be launched to restore a high-quality environment in North America and to de-develop the United States. De-devolopment means bringing our economic system (especially patterns of consumption) into line with the realities of ecology and the global resource situation. Resources and energy must be diverted from frivolous and wasteful uses in overdeveloped countries to filling the genuine needs of underdeveloped countries.”
“The need for de-development presents our economists with a major challenge,” they wrote. “They must design a stable, low-consumption economy[ Agenda 21 ] in which there is a much more equitable distribution of wealth than the present one. Redistribution of wealth both within and among nations is absolutely essential, if a decent life is to be provided for every human being.”
… In the same book.. “The fetus, given the opportunity to develop properly before birth, and given the essential early socializing experiences and sufficient nourishing food during the crucial early years after birth, will ultimately develop into a human being….” Source: http://grendelreport.posterous.com/obamas-science-czar-advocates-de-developing-t
Later we find Maurice Strong’s foot prints all over the campaign to lead the world into “Global Governance” Such as UN REFORM – Restructuring for Global Governance
For anyone who thinks this is not a return to a form of feudalism: disguised as socialism:
“What unites the many different forms of Socialism.. is the conception that socialism (or a reasonable facsimile thereof) must be handed down to the grateful masses in one form or another, by a ruling elite which is not subject to their control…” marxists.org
And this statement from one of those would be masters:
David Rockefeller: “We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. . . . It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.” http://www.newswithviews.com/Cappadona/heidi5.htm
That statement is supported by the 2002 Rockefeller autobiography “Memoirs” on page 405:
“For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents… to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as “internationalists and of conspiring with others around the world … If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”
If you are a socialist I suggest you do some studying on your would be masters. Rockefeller hosts a yearly meeting of the World Bank and his bank, Chase, was the training ground for the World Bank presidents on at least three occasions.
A place to start:
leaked draft agreement at Copenhagen hands control to World Bank
World Bank/IMF structural adjustment programs (SAPs)
“Today I resigned from the staff of the International Monetary Fund .. To me, resignation is a priceless liberation, for with it I have taken the first big step to that place where I may hope to wash my hands of what in my mind’s eye is the blood of millions of poor and starving peoples. “
PRESIDENT’S PRIVATE SECTOR SURVEY ON COST CONTROL: …100 percent of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the Federal debt and by Federal Government contributions to transfer payments. In other words, all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services which taxpayers expect from their government.
The big 50!
“Here are our findings, and those findings say that you must change your life in this way, that way, or the other way.” should be changed to: “Here are our findings, and those findings say that you must change your life in this way, that way, AND the other way.” It’s not like we’re being presented with a menu of options, but a list of requirements.