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.
Don says:
October 21, 2012 at 11:58 am
Totally Seconded.
Much appreciated, Lucy!
Don
JamesS says:
October 21, 2012 at 8:17 am
I wonder if Joel Shore would agree with Mr. Beisner’s statement if it were thus:
“We believe Earth and its ecosystems are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, and admirably suited for human flourishing”
IOW, exactly the same except for any mention of God. Surely Mr. Shore doesn’t believe that the Earth and its ecosystems need constant tending by humans to function, or that they are not well-suited for humans?
———————
No James.
It is the humans, who are suited to live on the Earth as it is. Not vice versa.
And, the same humans have the ability to destroy the Earth… and themselves.
alex says:
“…the same humans have the ability to destroy the Earth… and themselves.”
Only half right. Humans can destroy themselves, but the Earth will abide.
richardscourtney says:
A complete strawman. The problem is not that Beisner is religious. The problem is that his religious zealotry causes him to have extremely poor scientific judgement. Unless you think that believing in intelligent design over evolution shows good scientific judgement?
Why should we believe that his ideological zealotry doesn’t lead him to have similar poor judgement in regards to AGW, particularly when the arguments for the two seem to be inextricably linked in his own mind, as expressed in the Cornwall Alliance statement? I can’t believe so many people here are so willing to defend such nonsense just because it agrees with their own prejudices about AGW.
Do you really think you are ever going to be seen as anything other than jokers by the scientific community when you align yourself with such extreme anti-scientific views?
This lament is common in virtually all communication. There seems to be the belief that if the listener just paid more attention to the earnestness of the speaker and how important this belief is to the speaker, the listener would agree. It’s interesting the non-believers are painted as having more simplistic views of AGW. Perhaps that’s because of the constant retort: “It’s too complicated for you to understand” when people ask questions about climate change and science. It seems the problem is not the listener (skeptic) but rather the speaker (believer) who has the problem. They are incapable of explaining their viewpoint, so instead, they just put on a really sincere face and hope that works. It works for con artists of all types, so with a bit of practice, maybe they can pull it off. Perhaps a “mommy” face would work, followed by “Because I said so!”
Leshner: We need to communicate better the importance of our work so we get more money
Me: Stop assuming that because I do not like bad or wrong science, I am a creationist, anti-evolutionist, truther, birther or whatever political monika you try to smear me with. It is because I follow the scientific method, I do not buy the Warmista argument. Go hungry you dratsab Lysenkoist.
Why do people always say that “intellegent design” and “evolution” are contrary?
If there were such a thing as intellegent design, surely evolution would be part of that design.
That would be the sensible thing to do if you were to design something to exist in an ever changing environment. Design said item in such a way that it could change with the environment. Now that would be truly intellegent design.
joel shore says:
“The problem is not that Beisner is religious. The problem is that his religious zealotry causes him to have extremely poor scientific judgement.”
No different than Joel Shore’s anti-science religious climate zealotry. Pot/kettle.
JamesS says:
I believe that they are well-suited for humans not because of any divine providence but because humans would not have evolved under conditions that were not at least reasonably well-suited to them. Hence, there is no magical reason to believe that we can do whatever we want to the chemistry of the atmosphere and not have a significant impact on the earth’s climate system, ecosystems, and human civilization.
As for the robustness and resilience of the Earth and its ecosystems, I don’t think there is any really hard and fast answer on this. In many ways, they often turn out to be more robust than we expect; in other ways, they turn out to be more fragile than we could even imagine. The history of the Earth is not a particularly pleasant one, rife with dramatic and cataclysmic changes in climate, dramatic extinction events, and the like.
Unlike other creatures, we humans now have the ability to predict, to a significant degree, what effects we might have on the Earth and its ecosystems by our actions, and hence to avoid significantly damaging these systems. It would be a shame if we did not use that ability because we let ideology and religious dogma prevail over science.
joeldshore:
re your post at October 21, 2012 at 2:17 pm.
Please read ALL of my post from which you quote. Then try to learn (yes, I know that is hard for you).
I did NOT post a ‘straw man’. You have been posting illogical nonsense.
Richard
D Boehm says:
Science…and the use of science to inform public policy… has been successful because, across a reasonably wide range of political ideology, there has been a general agreement that the scientific community are the best ones to decide what constitutes good science (and what constitutes religious or ideological zealotry masquerading as science). And, there has even been agreement on what scientific institutions are best able to inform the public and policymakers in regards to science. In the U.S., it has been generally agreed that the National Academy of Sciences fulfills this role primarily, although professional scientific societies often also have a role.
While there have always been fringes on both the Left and Right who oppose listening to these scientific institutions when their conclusions disagree with what these ideologues want to believe is correct, these extremist groups have been the most part marginalized. Unfortunately, recently on the right side of the political spectrum, the ideologues seems to have infiltrated into the political sphere to such a degree that we are in danger of no longer letting science be decided by scientists and instead are having it decided by the ideologues and politicians (who trot out a few “pet” scientists who share their point of view).
It’s always nice to see those who declare themselves the most enlightened play the role of the bigot.
Well, not “nice,” more like the comfort of the banal.
AndyG55 says:
That is not what “intelligent design” means as used by the promoters of this notion themselves. You are expressing something more along the lines of what religious organizations, like the Catholic Church, say in regards to evolution: The Church basically accepts that science tells us how the universe works and religion is the why.
It is of course never possible to eliminate the existence of a Creator on the basis of science because science cannot ultimately adjudicate one way or another on something which is outside the naturalistic purview of science. Many religious people have learned not to challenge science in science’s own purview but just to say they deal with different questions. However, I think this produces some tension among some religious people because they realize that, as science explains more and more of the natural world, it leaves less and less that we don’t know and hence less and less role for God. This is presumably why some religious folks decide that they must challenge the science of evolution, rather than accept it. This is what the proponents of “intelligent design” do.
joel shore says:
“Unfortunately, recently on the right side of the political spectrum, the ideologues seems to have infiltrated into the political sphere to such a degree that we are in danger of no longer letting science be decided by scientists and instead are having it decided by the ideologues and politicians (who trot out a few ‘pet’ scientists who share their point of view).”
The extent of psychological projection in that single sentence is astounding.
Joeldshore:
At October 21, 2012 at 2:57 pm you say
Yes! The process has been usurped by ‘green’ activists who have ‘taken over’ the Executive Committees of major scientific institutions.
Richard Lindzen explains this in a shocking – and very readable – paper which names individuals and their actions, It can be read at
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.3762.pdf
Richard
“But on climate change and (naturalistic macro-) evolution (not to oversimplify and distort)…”
Oh dear, macro-evolution? Whilst I suspect Mr Beisner & I agree on the other 3 topics mentioned (vaccines, AGW & GM foods), might I suggest in future simply not mentioning evolution at all if you don’t support it*? You’ll sound a lot less like someone who fundamentally misunderstands science that way, which on a blog focused on science (okay, and the politics of science) is probably a good idea.
It is of course, a fallacy to assume that, because you believe in X, which is wrong (or right), your views on Y must also be wrong (or again, right)… but on many matters it’s often well known that people do this kind of thinking all the time. “You’re pro-choice? You must support gun control too, and vote for the Democratic Party.” “You believe in balanced budgets? Yep, Republican, and I bet you’re an ardent Christian faith too.” Better in these circumstances to not mention the divisive issue, because you’ll get more support on issue Y (ie, the one you’re actually writing about) from across the whole spectrum of views / beliefs.
A final thought, this time for Anthony Watts: what I’ve said above applies equally to letting people post on this blog too. “Hey, WUWT had some crazy creationist denier’s post up yesterday,” “God, how can anyone take them seriously?” etc. The AGW debate is very much a PR war between alarmists and realists: handing them ammunition is never a good idea 😛 .
* I’ve only ever heard of macro-evolution as a phrase used by creationists & their ilk, as opposed to people who accept (I’m not sure “believe in” is the right phrase here) the theory of evolution.
richardscourtney says:
joelshore,
Better to not comment than to show you are a credulous fool.
Mark:
If WUWT will not allow people to present controversial ideas, even the “unscientific” ones, how would that make this blog any different from say, SKS? “Intelligent design” may not be mainstream, but refusing to allow it to be discussed is really no different that shutting out those that disagree with the consensus of climate science. To said scientists, skeptics are just as unscientific as those who believe in intelligent design. The “majority of scientists reject intelligent design” sounds an awful lot like “the majority of scientists believe in global warming”. Let’s not go there.
Science, yes. But not the secret science practiced by Mann, the CRUgang, and their ilk. Why were Gergis and Karoly so against providing data to someone outside their group of backslappers? We saw why. If these “scientists” are confident of their results then they can comply with requests for publicly funded data as they’re required to. If they don’t, their papers can and should be ignored when it comes to policy.
Has the evolution crowd ever heard of Darwin’s Heretic? Check this out.
Keep Smiling
Jeff Alberts says:
More excuses and smokescreens. If you guys actually applied your belief in the open access of data and programs uniformly then you might have an argument. But you don’t by a long shot. Mann is still lambasted for hiding stuff even though he archived his 2009 paper so completely that even Steve McIntyre can find nothing to complain about. In the meantime, not one iota of code has ever been publicly released by Spencer and Christy. (I could give other examples that hit even closer to home here but will refrain from doing so.)
You are just coming up with excuses to ignore science evidence that goes against what you want to believe.
GlynnMhor says:
GlynnMhor, meet
Robert of Ottawa http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/20/science-publisher-calls-for-better-communications-but-not-of-science/#comment-1117195
Richard M http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/20/science-publisher-calls-for-better-communications-but-not-of-science/#comment-1116663
Reality Check http://whynotwind.wordpress.com/
Jeff Wiita http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/20/science-publisher-calls-for-better-communications-but-not-of-science/#comment-1117409
Sarcasm http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/20/science-publisher-calls-for-better-communications-but-not-of-science/#comment-1116244
…and, of course, E. Calvin Beisner, Roy Spencer, and David Legates. http://www.cornwallalliance.org/blog/item/prominent-signers-of-an-evangelical-declaration-on-global-warming/
Don http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/20/science-publisher-calls-for-better-communications-but-not-of-science/#comment-1117046
I think you may want to re-assess your claims.
And Mann’s 09 paper is a far cry from the alarmism of most of his papers up to that point.
However, two wrongs don’t make a right. Are Spencer and Christy’s datasets being used to form public policy? If they are, they should be open and transparent. They’re not doing so in no way excuses the multitude of climate scientists who obstruct legitimate requests for data.
And we’ve learned from McIntyre’s efforts that we have zero evidence of unprecedented warming in the last thousand plus years.