Guest post by E. Calvin Beisner
![Alan I. Leshner [Photograph by Colellaphoto.com]](https://i0.wp.com/www.aaas.org/ScienceTalk/images/leshner-highrez.jpg?quality=83 "Alan I. Leshner [Photograph by Colellaphoto.com]")
Leshner, CEO of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) and Executive Publisher of its flagship publication, Science, wrote in a recent editorial, “There is no shortage of topics where policy-makers or other members of the public seem to persistently misunderstand, misrepresent, or disregard the underlying science: climate change, genetically modified foods, vaccines, or evolution, among others.”
Well, I guess two out of four isn’t too bad. I imagine his and my understandings of GMO and vaccines are reasonably alike. But on climate change and (naturalistic macro-) evolution (not to oversimplify and distort), I suspect his conclusions and mine differ dramatically—and I have a feeling that, in question-begging style, he assumes that my conclusions are wrong and his are right, and what’s needed is for him and other scientists to help me understand the science better.
Trouble is (focusing here just on climate change), the better I’ve understood the science on climate change (having read over 40 books on the science and over 30 on the economics, and scores of major papers and thousands and thousands of articles on each), the more convinced I’ve become that catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) is false.
In fact, a careful scientific survey found that the more people know about the science, the less likely they are to believe in CAGW.
It seems likely, therefore, that Leshner will be disappointed in the results if scientists do become any better at communicating the science of climate change.
But a careful reading of his editorial suggests that that’s not what he’s really after anyway. After decrying scientists’ ineffectiveness at enlightening the public about the science of climate change, he writes,
Valuable studies have been carried out to discover what determines public attitudes toward science and technology, and some … point to an individual’s ideological views or cultural identity as having greater influence … than an understanding of the facts. Often, simply increasing public knowledge about an issue will not move the debate …. Instead, the way an issue is framed can have a larger effect on people’s views. As a case in point, many people will give more credit to the scientific claims about climate change when the issue is cast as a technological challenge than as a regulatory problem.
(I.e., with regard to that last sentence, if we beg the question of the reality of CAGW and just present people with the technological challenge of how to deal with it, we can avoid the problem of convincing them of its reality in the first place.)
It appears that what Leshner is really after is not better public understanding of science but particular public opinions about climate change and that he would be content to see scientists turn from facts to ideology, cultural identity, and framing to move public opinion on global warming—a dangerous but not uncommon view in our postmodern times, even in the science community, as I discussed in “Wanted for Premeditated Murder: How Post-Normal Science Stabbed Real Science in the Back on the Way to the Illusion of “Scientific Consensus” on Global Warming.”
That this would indeed satisfy Leshner his very next sentences confirm:
Science is complicated and often jargon-laden, so scientists may need help from a ‘translator’ to help tell a story simply and cogently. In doing so, the gist of the message is what matters. Here there is a lesson to be learned from antiscience [sic—note the question begging] forces, who regularly oversimplify science in very effective ways, even when distorting it.
Noting that “people care primarily about things that affect them personally or locally,” he adds, “thus, a useful approach is to determine what matters to a specific audience and seek a way to make the message relevant to them.”
Yes. Like telling kids who like furry polar bears that global warming is driving them extinct; or people on low-lying islands and seacoasts that global warming is driving sea levels upward faster than ever; or biodiversity champions that global warming threatens to drive half the world’s species extinct; or allergy-prone people that global warming’s cause, rising CO2, will cause the pollen that irritates them to multiply (to mention just four such tactics)—when the first three are false and the last is offset by the fact that pretty much all plants will grow better, meaning food will be cheaper.
The fact is, in my constant reading and conversations, I’ve found it far more common for CAGW true believers than critics to oversimplify and even distort the science. It’s the true believers who so readily resort to the claim, “Look, it’s basic physics. Greenhouse gases warm the planet, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, so more CO2 means more warmth.” They’re the ones who don’t like to get into the weeds of quantifying “climate sensitivity,” CO2’s logarithmic warming curve, the sign and magnitude of climate feedbacks, the multiple natural drivers of climate, whether and how much local land use change (especially urbanization) distorts “global” temperature readings, or any number of pesky details that falsify their intuitively sensible but false conclusion. They’ll discuss them, reluctantly, if pressed, but only then.
“Public understanding and support of science and technology have never been more important, but also never more tenuous,” Leshner says. Perhaps he’s right about the support, but I have a hunch public support for “science” (in this context, code for global warming alarmism) is tenuous precisely because public understanding of science is growing—thanks to “climate skeptics.”
E. Calvin Beisner, Ph.D., is Founder and National Spokesman of The Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation, author of three books on environmental science, economics, ethics, and policy, and a member of the AAAS.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I don’t think it is possible to legitimately claim any “parallel” in discussions on two entirely different sciences at very different stages of development and knowledge.
Knowledge in the one area commenced with recorded observations and statistical records going back at least three centuries. From that a basic but risky solution evolved, which was in use for almost a century. Statistics of risk and success were researched, recorded and discussed. Further observations led to further experimentation which provided a much better solution with a much more acceptable level of safety. Since then the science has evolved hugely, with a massive amounts of statistical data from controlled trials and epidemiological studies and in almost every situation, responses, protection rates, risks and side effects can be known with reasonable precision.
In the above case, people who argue against the benefits of ‘the science’ must ignore the vast amount of statistical data and the detailed scientific knowledge of the mechanisms involved.
On the other hand, with the topic of AGW and climate change, we have a science which has put forward a plausible theory, ‘proven’ it by computer modelling, and is in the early stages of data collection.
In this second case, people who argue ‘the science is settled, we already know this to be true’ must rely on circumstantial evidence and ignore the fact that little has been proven.
And that does not lead me to think we should at this stage do nothing, but we certainly won’t benefit from simply acting for the sake of acting.
If the science is strong enough it will benefit by its discussion and soon enough provide sufficient evidence under the focused gaze of researchers.
I’m here for information.
How it is processed is beyond my control.
Synapses can not be reasoned with.
…..But given my background in biological sciences and my understandings of genetics and evolution, the original author and I would likely disagree quite strongly on some other areas of science:
E. Calvin Beisner, Ph.D., is Founder and National Spokesman of The Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation,
Actually, Leshner’s idea of “communication” is fear mongering:
Leshner hyperventilates to all AAAS members in 2007
p.s. Leshner’s warm endorsement of John Holdren’s “tithing” 10% proposal (see email at link), a religious practice being introduced to the AAAS membership, is a reminder that enviro-activists are often religious in orientation, not scientific
D Boehm says
So, are you saying that you agree with Beisner’s assessment regarding the science of evolution? Or, does he just happen to be completely off-base on evolution but right about AGW?
Joel Shore writes of: “… God’s intelligent design…”
Not many people anywhere believe in that kind of stuff, and among those intelligent enough to examine critically the state of ‘climate science’, an even lower percentage.
The reality remains that the predictions of the CO2 alarmism are simply not coming to pass. Global temperatures are just not rising as CO2 rises, much less at rates that might be seen as alarming.
GlynnMhor says: October 20, 2012 at 3:12 pm
“…..There is a host of self-centred and greedy ulterior motives different people have for supporting the AGW paradigm. …..”
Brilliant post Glynn, and very important.
Every time I get involved in a debate on this it soon devolves into; “So you think all the world’s climate scientists and governments are involved in a giant conspiracy to …etc…”
And I always answer; “No, I don’t believe there is a conspiracy at all, or that it wold be possible to make one on that sort of scale. All it takes is a whole lot of parallel self interests which will benefit from the solutions and actions which are proposed”.
And Glynn lists them all very nicely.
E. Calvin Beisner
Thanks for shining the light on Alan Leshner’s assertions that foundationally undermine the very science he purports to support. We the People retain the right of nullification – of ignoring or “nullifying” policies or laws contrary to foundational unalienable rights and constitutional protections. Dressing tyranny up in scientific sounding garb does not make it any less tyrannical.
PS Thanks for the Cornwall Alliance and the articles posted.
GlynnMhor says: October 20, 2012 at 3:12 pm
“…..There is a host of self-centred and greedy ulterior motives different people have for supporting the AGW paradigm. …..”
Brilliant post Glynn, and very important.
Every time I get involved in a debate on this it soon devolves into; “So you think all the world’s climate scientists and governments are involved in a giant conspiracy to …etc…”
And I always answer; “No, I don’t believe there is a conspiracy at all, or that it wold be possible to maek one on that sort of scale. All it takes is a whole lot of parallel self interests which will benefit from the solutions and actions which are proposed”.
And Glynn lists them all very nicely.
Time and time again I have noticed that those who lean to port (in science, politics, or whatever) invariably believe that any and all dissent from their position is due to the failure of the dissenter to comprehend the message.
The consensus of the anointed who support the position is considered to be an inviolate and unquestionable proof of the fact.
Once it becomes clear the dissenter is both informed and competent, he or she much be awarded a derogatory label. Favorites are denier, racist, Nazi, etc.
It’s really, really, tiresome.
There is a big difference between “telling” people that the planet’s temperature is increasing at an accelerating rate and “showing” people that it is. One is propaganda and the other is science. So many of these advocates look for an easy way to do the former without having to do the latter. Either they can’t do it, or they’re too lazy to do the work required. People would believe them if they could provide solid evidence. But they say that waiting until warming becomes obvious to everybody will be too late. They just want us to trust them. But I’m not willing to do that because it’s clear that they want us to believe in the catastrophic nature of global warming whether it’s true or not.
It’s also clear that many of them (e.g. Hansen, Gore, Mann, etc.) are using global warming as a means to an end — It’s for “the cause” (whatever that is). It makes me very suspicious that they are using global warming as an excuse to thrust extreme environmentalism, global governance, or some other pet cause down our throats. Even for those without a “cause”, if they make their living off government, they will naturally want more of it.
They want us to believe that the choice is between allowing government, under their expert direction, to do something to stop global warming, or allowing millions to die in warming related catastrophes. If those are my only choices, I still choose the latter. Doing something to stop global warming means placing severe limits on the use of fossil fuels. That is a certain prescription for the death of millions, especially if the climate cools. So until I know that warming will do more harm than good, I’ll place my bet on a warming planet. And rather than spend trillions to stop something that may be unstoppable or may even be beneficial, I’d rather wait and see what happens. Then, if necessary, we can use that money to help us adapt to whatever comes our way. That seems to be a more prudent path than the one people with vested interests want to sell us.
Well markx why don’t you complete the job and look at his book titles as well.
“Science” has long been dedicated to a paradigm which essentially says that blind chance working through chaos and deep time are the highest laws which give the order we see around us, and on which our lives depend.
Others believe that the highest laws which govern reality are Good and Truth. These give order as well as a constant, wonderful progress to the material world and to our own lives. Inexorably.
It is neither unscientific nor irrational to regard the Laws of the Universe differently than we are taught in school. In fact, it is a protected right, enshrined in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
markx suggests: “… a plausible theory, ‘proven’ it by computer modelling…”
Computer modelling tells us about the assumptions and hypotheses built into the algorithms of the models… but models cannot ‘prove’ anything about the real world.
At best a model whose predictions continue to come to pass means that the underlying science has not been disproved by the comparison.
In Science, hypotheses make predictions (possibly via model results) and are tested against those predictions.
When the predictions fail, however, the hypotheses, assumptions and/or algorithms of the models need to be re-examined.
At present things are so bad with the CAGW hypothesis that what sustains the paradigm is more Political Correctness than actual science.
GlynnMohr@3:12 gives a thoughtful list . Well done.
Recently I have been thinking about:
(1) The more science depends upon government funding and approvals the more science will function like government.
(2) The essence of government is to rule, not to discover.
(3) We are rapidly approaching (1) in nearly every field.
Joel Shore,
I am saying that if it were not for psychological projection, you wouldn’t have much to say. You impute your own faults onto everyone else, like a thief believing everyone else is a thief, or a liar believing everyone else is lying.
GlynnMhor says: October 20, 2012 at 8:32 pm
markx suggests: “… a plausible theory, ‘proven’ it by computer modelling…”
Glynn, note proven was in inverted commas … we are in agreement…
D Boehm says:
In other words, you don’t want to answer my simple question. The author of this article believes certain things about evolution and God that are, as the Cornwall Declaration makes abundantly clear, fundamentally linked to his views on AGW. All I am asking is for you to explain what parts of his viewpoint you agree with and what parts you reject and why, if you reject part of his viewpoint so strongly, you think that it doesn’t fundamentally undermine the rest of what he has to say?
I think Alan Leshner is worried because he no longer controls the dialogue about climate; none of the “climatologists” do. Check out the blog stats for WUWT which currently shows 128,741,735 views. I come here frequently, but I haven’t picked up a copy of Science in years–and don’t plan on it, either–and I’m sure I’m not alone.
I don’t even bother to check out their site ’cause this is far more interesting. So I think this is audience envy–I’m not sure what Science even talks about nowadays but I bet they haven’t had 128 million readers since WUWT started.
I also get the impression that Mr. Leshner would use an editorial whip to keep us all on The Path to Climate Enlightenment–his path, if he could. Let’s hope he doesn’t find or isn’t given one.
Zeke says: October 20, 2012 at 8:29 pm
“Well markx …..”
Zeke. Thank you for your Viewpoint. Viewpoints I can respect. But there are some I do not necessarily see any logic in, nor agree with.
GlynnMohr says:
Well, then why publicize the views on climate science of those who do and who in fact explicitly link their views on climate science and intelligent design together? And, you might want to look at the list of the signers of the Cornwell Alliance statement ( http://www.cornwallalliance.org/blog/item/prominent-signers-of-an-evangelical-declaration-on-global-warming/ ), who include such illustrious scientists of the AGW skeptic movement as Roy Spencer and David Legates.
Re: Evolution
It is possible to have doubts. E.g. Famous atheist Dawkins eventually arrive titled on the premise that alien creators were as likely as random chance. I’m not a fan anymore, but I was for a time. To reach the conclusion that theological creationists are morons, you must begin with the assumption that there is no reasonable creator. Then you must simplify away non-theological creators with philosophical concepts like Occam’s razor. Foresight of the desired result drives trade offs from the start. Let’s stop labeling others stupid because they start with different assumptions.
Joel Shore says:
October 20, 2012 at 7:32 pm
Oh, baloney, Joel. CAGW is one of the biggest religions on the planet, and one of the best funded! A real scientist, by definition, is a skeptic. Anyone who studies climate and claims otherwise is a religious acolyte of CAGW.
(You can always tell the worshippers–they hide their data and methodology. Does anyone come to mind?)
Rocky Road says:
“Oh, baloney, Joel. CAGW is one of the biggest religions on the planet, and one of the best funded! A real scientist, by definition, is a skeptic. Anyone who studies climate and claims otherwise is a religious acolyte of CAGW.”
Repeated for effect.
Non-sequitur.
I am a CAGW skeptic (note the “C”), but I find Evolution plausible. I’m sure on the other side of the fence you have those who don’t find Evolution plausible (or believe strongly in God) but feel CAGW is happening now. One stance doesn’t obviate the other.
Joel Shore says: October 20, 2012 at 7:32 pm
“…..Ah, that’s because his conclusions are based on the best scientific evidence and yours are based on your ideological and religious beliefs…..”
C’mon Joel. You know that is a lazy approach to debate. Just because a man holds some weird, dogmatic, ‘religious’ beliefs in one area does not mean he cannot perceive the scientific evidence clearly in another field.
In fact, most CAGW proponents show exactly the same kind of belief in dogma, not even taking the reasonable approach of, “Hey, CAGW is one plausible theory, let’s monitor and assess it fully!” Instead, all we get is; “This is a fact, “proven” by …. computer modeling!”
Followed by; “We must do something! Anything! But we must do it now!”