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
William Sears says:
July 29, 2010 at 7:48 am
…..These are far from neutral statements and, in fact, have about the same level of rigor as the alarmist claims of runaway global warming. Sandy Szwarc of http://www.junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/ has done an incredible job of debunking these kind of claims in recent years.
____________________________________________________________
Thanks
This one leaped out. So much for “obamacare” It looks like a scam to rip off the poor who can not afford to eat well, do not have time for exercise because they work two jobs and are more likely to smoke. It targets women especially black women (ACLU where are you?)
October 04, 2009: Penalties for bad behavior
http://www.junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/
“Wednesday, the Senate Finance Committee approved a healthcare reform amendment that would penalize employees who are not following “healthy lifestyles” and participating in wellness programs. Employers will be allowed to raise healthcare premiums by as much as 50 percent for workers who are fat, smoke, don’t exercise, are noncompliant with preventive care, and not meeting certain health measures, such as lower cholesterol levels.“
It is worse when someone uses the good reputation of their title and profession, earned on the hard work of others, to convince people that a fraud is the truth. And its compounded when they have help from the media, universities and politicians.
This is a really weak argument, and those stats are terrible.
On the flipside, you could just as easily write an entire article about how people are abandoning Religion because of it’s Authoritarian tone. However, this would actually be accurate since Religion does not encourage exploration of the questions, only definitive “answers.”
My point being, you don’t “like” the Science. DIY, prove ’em wrong. Go on, it’s permitted!
REPLY: We all here like science, just not poorly done and oversold science. – Anthony
beng says:
July 29, 2010 at 6:12 am
The modern game of “Simple Science Says”:
“Science says, take one step forward, and five steps back”.
Well, no, not.
More it is: “Look —very carefully— before you leap to conclusions!”
The original wording was correct. The author of the article, Erin Biba, was reporting on what Kelly Bush was saying. See fourth para of the Wired article, second para as carried here.
Details, details…
899 says:
July 29, 2010 at 9:23 am
…..You simply MUST remember: Almost ALL of the MSM are OWNED by a small cadre of insiders.
Like it or not, believe it or not, that’s the way it is.
THINK: How is it that almost all of the MSM —newspapers, radio, TEE VEE, major magazines, journals, etc., all seem to reflect the VERY SAME THOUGHTS?
It’s NOT by coincidence: THEY ARE OWNED by the same small cadre of insiders…
_______________________________________________________
That showed up in the U.S. Congressional Record February 9, 1917, page 2947 When it was brought to the attention of Congress that J.P. Morgan Interests had bought 25 of America’s Leading Newspapers and inserted editors.
““In March, 1915, the J.P. Morgan interests, the steel, ship building and powder interests and their subsidiary organizations, got together 12 men high up in the newspaper world and employed them to select the most influential newspapers in the United States and sufficient number of them to control generally the policy of the daily press in the United States.”
Actually it goes back even further to when Paul Warburg manipulated the news and the universities to get the Federal Reserve Act passed in 1913. Please note that Max, Paul’s brother funded Lenin and the Bolshevik Revolution. Max Warburg also helped establish a Russian publishing house.
The Modern History Project Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution is a rather good read on the subject of bankers, the media and the revolution.
It is a nasty smelly mess when you lift up the rock of the media and look underneath.
Anthony,
I think you are using your cover of “poorly done science” to pick and choose which Science you wish to believe in, to fill your own agendas. What kind of litmus are you applying in order to choose what you like (err….”believe in”) and what you don’t believe in, in regards to Science? I’d be interested to hear what you think, rather than just reading a reprint from a media article.
Pascvaks says: at 8:14 am
“…The level of integrity has indeed fallen to the microscopic, if not nanoscopic, these days…”
Well said.
Integrity is bought and sold these days, like every other dead thing that can be traded. The entire case for “man-made global warming” rests on lies, deception, corruption, and the most massive scientific fraud in history. The thieves and liars running this racket have all the morality of a bunch of gangsters enforcing a protection racket. Keep yourself informed about their deceit and trickery in order to guard yourself against this disgusting scum. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
A very good article. But I think what needs to be highlighted is the evaluation of risk in scientific pronouncements..
For example, “science tells us” that metors and comets have severely impacted our planets’ environment in the past (which I accept), and assigns probabilities to future events based upon our interpretation of historical data. If, however, astronomers detected a comet that could intersect Earth’s orbit at a future time, and further measurements showed that a collision was more and more probable, then it would be reasonable for humanity to expend massive efforts to manufacture launchers and thermonuclear devices in order to try to shatter, or deflect, the incoming body.
As a physicist I have observed the AGW story for several years, with frustration mounting to anger, at the prostitution of the scientific method – all (in my view), in greed and the pursuit of control. The theory / hypothesis that CO2, consequent upon human activity, is altering the global climate is interesting, and is worthy of serious scientific study in my opinion. But as there is not a shred of verifiable evidence that AGW poses any threat to humanity the concept of skewing the global economy with “carbon trading”, to the tune of trillions of dollars, in order to mitigate this supposed threat, is sheer lunacy!
But it has been 40 years since I studied physics at university – I expect a lot has changed.
I sometimes wonder if the lack of any recent comprehensive public opinion polls on ‘Global Warming’ might be another case of ‘hiding the decline.’
An interesting study, but it would be better if it had compared the growing frequency of “authoritarian” science phrases with that of “factual” phrases like “science indicates”, “science proves”, “science establishes”, etc. This would adjust for the rapid growth of the data bases that Lexis/Nexis is searching over.
Science isn’t going to be advanced by a bunch of anecdotal stories of how people’s lives are being ruined by a degree of warming, which is probably largely invented btw. That is the problem with the credibility of those that push that sort of garbage as science. The average person would see right through that sort of idiocy.
It is just another example of them thinking that the message isn’t the problem. They approach this like political activists that need to repackage the message. It doesn’t even occur to them that the message is understood. Erin Biba is just proving that “science” by her definition is propaganda.
Gail Combs:
Thanks for the link to Learn, about the Delphi process. I’m not sure it directly applies here, but I believe that everyone should take a look. It describes a process that I have personally witnessed in operation several times now.
This isn’t a “conspiracy theory”, it’s a method that a whole new generation of manipulators have developed to make people think they want something that they don’t. I have seen it used as described when talking parents into allowing sex ed classes in grade 3, among other things. The key is to alienate those who see through the scam, and sometimes even results in people moving away to avoid continued conflict with their neighbors. It works.
It IS related to our climate discussions. By associating those who don’t want to go along with the social engineering that the cAGW “movement” is enabling with “deniers”, “rednecks”, “tobacco”, “capitalists”, etc, these people get kicked out of the discussion completely. The hope is that “we” will simply disappear. Knowing the tactic is the first step to pushing back.
We need to push back. This ceased to be about science some years ago and is now purely about other goals and agendas. To be honest, I feel sorry for those few who post here that really believe in cAGW. Their wake-up will come eventually… hopefully before it’s too late.
“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.”
How is this any different from what they have been doing for years?
Rinse and repeat. Keep hoping that doing the same thing will give different results.
Wow. “Science” sounds a lot like my wife!
Brendan Locke says:
July 29, 2010 at 9:53 am
“[…] My point being, you don’t “like” the Science. DIY, prove ‘em wrong. Go on, it’s permitted!”
It might have escaped your attention but this is already being done by several physicists, professors etc. The fact that the warmists stonewall will not help them forever. They have the radiative physics wrong.
“Recently, the so-called “greenhouse effect” has itself come under increasing attack by a phalanx of scientific experts, including Dr. Gerhard Gerlich and Dr. Ralf D. Tscheuschner,
professor Nasif Nahle, applied mathematician Claes Johnson, former radio-chemist Alan Siddons, analytical chemist Hans Schreuder, combustion research scientist Martin Hertzberg, and engineer Heinz Thieme”
http://www.examiner.com/x-32936-Seminole-County-Environmental-News-Examiner~y2010m7d22-Global-warming-alarmists-in-full-retreat-lash-out-at-skeptics
899: “THINK: How is it that almost all of the MSM —newspapers, radio, TEE VEE, major magazines, journals, etc., all seem to reflect the VERY SAME THOUGHTS?
It’s NOT by coincidence: THEY ARE OWNED by the same small cadre of insiders.”
I’m very sceptical of these types of claims, which strike me as bordering on the paranoid, especially given the existence of the fair and balanced media.
What I think is much more likely is that both the rank-and-file scribblers and the MSM insiders are themselves subject to control by a third force.
Just what form this third force takes is speculative, but most likely it’s some sort of direct electronic mind control emanating from a single source, probably foreign, or at least foreign-influenced. Find that source, neutralise it, and you’ve solved the problem.
How to achieve that? Well, the fair and balanced media are obviously not victims of this electronic mind control, and nor are they foreign. Clearly, they have found a way of blocking the mind rays. So what is Anthony not telling us?
When I was an engineering student at university, I was required to take a liberal elective each semester (what I called then “courses where you don’t have to think). I never figured out why the university regents required engineers to have a liberal education minor, but never required liberal arts majors to be trained in cause-and-effect or “how the world works.” I think this would go a long way to help the average person to see through the baloney pretending to be science. Ditto for high school.
First I was bored, then nauseated listening to my classmates endlessly discussing the merits of different flavors of socialism. Now, 30 years later, I’m afraid of my government for the first time in my life. Administrations and congresses have come and gone; I have agreed and disagreed with them, but I have never before been afraid!
Anthony: I posted this over at the AirVent:
The Skeptics Credo:
I understand the radiative capture of CO2.
I accept that radiative capture creates warming.
I acknowledge that there is climate feedback to warming.
I assert the rest is unknown.
“The work of Science has nothing whatsoever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world.”
Michael Crichton, speech in
Washington DC, 25 January 2005
I think this should be our mantra… so to speak
(Thanks to Jeff Id for coming up with it.)
On a slightly OT, but kind of related note, Time magazine, that bastion of conservative anti-environmentalism, is admitting that Rush Limbaugh might not be such a complete idiot after all for asserting that “the greatest environmental disaster in history” was being overhyped.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2007202,00.html
“The obnoxious anti-environmentalist Rush Limbaugh has been a rare voice arguing that the spill — he calls it “the leak” — is anything less than an ecological calamity, scoffing at the avalanche of end-is-nigh eco-hype.
Well, Limbaugh has a point. The Deepwater Horizon explosion was an awful tragedy for the 11 workers who died on the rig, and it’s no leak; it’s the biggest oil spill in U.S. history. It’s also inflicting serious economic and psychological damage on coastal communities that depend on tourism, fishing and drilling. But so far — while it’s important to acknowledge that the long-term potential danger is simply unknowable for an underwater event that took place just three months ago — it does not seem to be inflicting severe environmental damage. “The impacts have been much, much less than everyone feared,” says geochemist Jacqueline Michel, a federal contractor who is coordinating shoreline assessments in Louisiana.”
Given the source of the commentary, the admissions that appear in it would suggest that Rush was more correct than even he imagined. It’s one of the few things in Time in decades that I would recommend reading in its entirety.
Brendan Locke asks:
“What kind of litmus are you applying in order to choose what you like (err….”believe in”) and what you don’t believe in, in regards to Science?”
Scientific method, as first explained by Galileo. The essentials are that you create reasonably confirmed hypotheses, such as Kepler’s Laws, and from them you can make predictions whose truth or falsity in experience will determine the fate of your hypotheses. The moral core is that you share all your work and methods and that you eagerly seek tests of your hypotheses. Climategaters failed on all measures. To this day, they hide their data, a claim that you can check on McIntyre’s site right now.
This is super interesting. Apparently it’s the soot, caused mostly by the cooking fires of poor people, that is responsible for most of the warming of the last century. We need to get those folks some modern energy sources and clean cooking stoves. Not because the world is pleasantly warmer than before but because soot kills millions of people around the world from indoor and outdoor air pollution.
Note: the “smokestack” shown in the photograph in the link is not emitting soot, it’s emitting steam. U.S. power plants are not allowed to emit soot. I have a fascinating graph I made from data on the US EPA website showing a precipitous decline in U.S. air pollution over the past two decades. Unfortunately I don’t know how to post it here.
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/07/soot-control/
Seems to me if the science is honest and presented honestly–with all the caveats and error ranges, etc., no PR is needed. Where results are honest and there is little controversy, people will act accordingly, or at least with knowledge. For the climate change issues, there is no honesty, no caveats, lots of controversy and a PR campaign seeking to force people to act in a preferred way, through government intervention if necessary. It all starts with the honesty.
A lot of comments regarding AGW equate it to a religion. I think this bears some closer scrutiny and definition. Most folks ( at least in the western cultures ) think of Judeo/Christian monotheism when this is mentioned. In reality, I think it is more akin to the older polytheism types of religions or paganism/animism. The reason I think so, is the multitude of deities that crop up in regards to Climate Change – CO2, Methane, Solar, Population, Oil, Biodiversity, etc., etc. – which take on the countenance of many good or evil gods and goddesses, and which must be placated with various forms of human or animal sacrifice. Each has it’s priests, rituals, and temples (solar panels, windfarms, oil refineries, and so on ), and each is fairly intolerant of others.
Being a non-religious, non-superstitious type I tend to view it all with a mix of apprehension and amusement.
From CBC News …
Global warming ‘undeniable,’ report says
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/07/29/climate-change-study-noaa.html?ref=rss