From the University of Bristol some research you have to wonder about how it ever got funded. One new fashionable word set I think they should add to this is “Tabloid Climatology™”.
Drifting word clouds may change perceptions of climate science
Trends in the use of words in scientific studies may correlate with and impact public perceptions
Professor Alexander Bentley and colleagues found that words commonly used by scientists when discussing climate science – such as ‘biodiversity’, ‘global’, and ‘isotopes’ – follow fashion cycles in public usage as the usage of such words by scientists diffuses into use by non-scientists. According to the authors, this effect may contribute to the impact of climate research on societal perceptions.
The researchers used Google’s ‘Ngram’ database, which at present scans through over five million books published in seven languages since the 1500s, to represent public discourse (not scientific discourse) concerning climate science. Since the database was only unveiled a couple years ago, this research is among the very first studies of its kind.
They found that, while there is a continual output of climate science, there are pronounced fashion waves in public usage of the main keywords associated with this science. These waves vary in length, but the median duration is about a human generation (2-3 decades).
These fashion waves can be modelled in a very straightforward manner, so they ought to be predictable in some sense. Thus, a simple model of word-usage trends could be used to inform efforts for better communication, the researchers argue. Recognizing which words are spread by diffusion, along with the ideas they represent, could help campaigns improve social learning, rather than simply expecting an audience to adopt a message because it is scientifically sound.
Professor Bentley said: “Since the impact of climate science is so inherently linked to public acceptance – or denial – of the evidence for climate change, we suggest that our study provides a crucial first step toward gauging public response over the long term.
“Ideally, the methods we present – applied to new sources of ‘big data’ like Google Ngrams – can be used to prepare for changes in public opinion over the generations on matters of global importance.”
Paper
‘Word diffusion and climate science’ by R. Alexander Bentley, Philip Garnett, Michael J. O’Brien and William A. Brock in PLoS ONE.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
So, words and phrases come into, and go out of, fashion. Wow! That’s really hip, daddio.
Anyone for climate scrabble?
It sounds sinister.
It sounds like studying the semantics, not the meaning
It sounds like manipulating the debate by controlling the language that describes the debate.
Newspeak.
But that doesn’t make it tabloid science.
It sounds like it might work.
It seems to me they are saying that there are 20-30 year cycles in how the public uses “climate science” words in the 20-30 years “climate science” has been around. That doesn’t seem reasonable.
I think facts are what tend to diffuse through the public discourse. The things we live with, we talk about. Warmer is not happening. We forget storms, so we talk about those, and the hoaxers can hype the language for a time. Still, the fact is, cold kills. Warmer is better. We used to call warm spells in human history “climate optimums,” but that is no longer politically correct. It is still, however, a fact that warmer is better for life on earth.
From Dr. Scotese, “During the last 2 billion years the Earth’s climate has alternated between a frigid “Ice House”, like today’s world, and a steaming “Hot House”, like the world of the dinosaurs.” http://scotese.com/climate.htm
I know the dinosaurs agree. Cold kills. Warmer is better.
This is a good example of where “science” has gone — it’s all about “feelings” and “perceptions” and if we’re getting really down to the nitty-gritty, it might even be about computer models.
As for things like “numerical observations” and “recording actual data”, forget it, because hard data doesn’t have an agenda.
“Recognizing which words are spread by diffusion, along with the ideas they represent, could help campaigns improve social learning, rather than simply expecting an audience to adopt a message because it is scientifically sound”
Like phlogiston, blood-letting, and Eugenics?
The author’s bias slip is showing.
How about: Adhering to the scientific method, showing your work, and reaching reasonable conclusions through logic; rather than simply expecting an audience to adopt a message because some assert it is scientifically sound.
FIFY
words commonly used – such as ‘biodiversity’, ‘global’, and ‘isotopes’
They left out my favorite adjective – “robust.”
Read on the Sokal Affair that started with the Social Text journal article ‘Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity.”
Science is not adhockery and jargon. Read and understand Karl Popper’s Logic of Scientific Discovery.
If the study is saying that words come into and out of fashion, and with the words so do certain concepts, then clearly it may be of interest if you want to get your message over.
And the point that the tale is not understood simply because it is true is a good one. The exposition must be tailored to the audience.
Paleotempestology in a tea cup definitely won’t make the cut.
In the olden days, academic freedom meant that a researcher could work on a topic which seemed totally obscure or irrelevant to most (or all) of the rest of the world. That is a good thing, on the whole; and sometimes the topic turns out to be useful years later – eg Einstein’s use of the Lorentz transformation.
There also comes to mind Cavendish funding his own scientific investigations – they seemed potty to the rest of the family, but what a boost to knowledge they are recognised to be.
Long live obscure research!
This seems like a “hot pizza oil burns the roof of your mouth” study. Socialism among many other ideologies are well known for recycling old propaganda after the public forgets its true meaning.
The 20-30 years of course marks the time in which an a set of people commonly go through college. These people learn the propaganda of the time. That propaganda is then normally proven wrong or at least discredited toward the end of that cycle. This people no longer believe the propaganda as it was spun in college/eduction. Thus they need new propaganda for the new students and for the old students to keep them hooked.
You’ll note things like population bomb, global cooling and really not global warming have all run through this cycle. Its not unexpected that we start seeing more and more recycled propaganda from the population bomb era and the verbiage that was used from that time to start making its way back into the cycle.
Fashionable words?
How about unprecedented? It certainly has been used quite a bit over the last few years.
Somehow “Tube Top” keeps popping into my head also………..
One of the major societal drawbacks to the ‘global warming’ political/religious movement is the amount of money that it is pumping into the research of propaganda techniques.
Long after this trumped up scare has gone, the “public perception” methods developed for its promotion will still be used to manipulate the populace to other ends.
Word Diffusion
Word Diffusion in Science
Word Diffusion in Political Science
Word Diffusion in Climate Science
Now which of these potential titles might garner the most interest and potential funding for a project…..
Perhaps we ought to study
Word Diffusion in Applications for Research Grants?
Professor Bentley said: “Since the impact of climate science is so inherently linked to public acceptance – or denial – of the evidence for climate change,” ——– surely the antonym of acceptance is rejection….
Analysis of the process which diffused the two oxygen atoms away from evil but invisible CO2, leaving (black) carbon as the threatening boogyman and the latent racism inherent in the process would be of real interest.
Doesn’t measure up at all to the constant effluent of grant-babble from Skip Lewandowsky here in Western Australia.
One fashion wave of keywords that I regret ever dipping my toes in is the use of the term “policy makers.” When science is doubtful, and stakes are high, policy makers must apply the Precautionary Principle for the public good!
The word “politician” is so much better for the real sense of what is being done. When sustainablility and climate scientists work with politicians, scientists can raise sufficient concern and progress can be halted or reversed. Politicians and sustainability scientists centralize control “for the public good.”
In precisely the same manner as climate science does, sustainability always works in the politicians favor, and the scientists model fashion waves of word usage trends to promote public acceptance and transmit wild phobias and fads about our electricity, crops, cattle, food, and air.
Lets not forget that these “fashions” are the result of very deliberate propaganda campaigns, orchestrated by people with the same political ideology as these so called researchers. Almost all of our political and cultural vocabulary has been created by Marxists, and now they are defining our scientific and technical vocabulary as well.
As a Bristol maths graduate, I was sorry to see this – but don’t be prejudiced against the whole of Bristol because the University actually does a lot of really useful science research. I have to say, though, that as a graduate who is often asked for donations I am always careful to try and make sure any contribution goes to mathematics, computer science (my career) or other REAL sciences.
BTW, biodiversity is not a scientific term. Its pure Marxism.
Here’s an incoming multimillion dollar fashion wave of keywords and word usage trends you might want to familiarize yourself with:
“To explore ways of maximizing the benefits of…development while minimizing potential negative effects on human communities and ecosystems, the National Science Foundation (NSF) has entered into a cooperative agreement with a University of Colorado Boulder (CU-Boulder)-led team of scientists, engineers and educators and eight partner organizations.
NSF has also entered into a cooperative agreement with another interdisciplinary team of scientists, engineers and educators; it supports a multi-institution research network on sustainable climate risk management strategies.”
Scientists and policymakers have identified the potential for threshold responses, or “tipping points,” in climate change.
There’s a tipping point alright – the tipping point of scientists into the lucrative business of politics and “risk management”.
All part of the major study by social scientists ‘Why Global Warming Propaganda Isn’t Working’.
Eventually they will get around to studying ‘Why Global Warming Propaganda Never Worked’.
The fashion word tsunami continues, bringing social sciences and interdisciplinary studies and funding to scientists:
“Sustainability Research Networks combine the best of our research efforts in social and physical science and engineering into an effort to better understand the complex relationships between environmental change and the human condition,” says Myron Gutmann, NSF assistant director for Social, Behavioral & Economic Sciences.
“The SRNs include combinations of social sciences that will guide the future of our efforts to create a sustainable planet.”
This particular fashion wave of keywords and money quotes comes with gifts, to ensure there is a tipping point of science into politics. It’s interdisciplinary with the social sciences – and it’s for the public good.