From the TAYLOR & FRANCIS GROUP
Public may be more accepting of advocacy by climate scientists than previously thought
The experiment, conducted by researchers at George Mason University’s Center for Climate Change Communication, showed that on five out of six occasions when a fictional scientist made advocacy statements to the public on Facebook, their own and their colleagues credibility was left unharmed.
The example statements, tested on a nationally representative sample of U.S. adults, covered a broad spectrum of potential public engagement activities, including a recent scientific finding, a discussion of the risks and impacts of climate change, pros and cons of different proposals to address climate change, a broad call for action on climate change, and two different statements where the scientist endorsed a specific action – limiting carbon dioxide emissions from coal-burning power plants or building more nuclear power plants.
The only instance where the credibility of the scientist suffered was after the endorsement of a specific controversial policy – building more nuclear power plants. This suggests that the American public are more likely to object to a scientist’s advocacy statement when a specific standpoint is endorsed, and not when more general statements are made.
It has previously been thought that public advocacy on issues such as climate change can compromise the credibility of both individual scientists and the broader scientific community. However, this study suggests that scientists have the ability to communicate with the public without the risk of harming their reputation.
“This study certainly won’t end debate about how scientists can best contribute to public discussions about climate change,” said lead author John Kotcher, a Postdoctoral Research Fellow at George Mason University. “However, we hope that our findings at least help stimulate a more evidence-based conversation among scientists about the relationship between scientific advocacy and credibility, rather than simply relying upon intuition or anecdote to choose which role is best for them.”
In a commentary that accompanied the study, scientist Simon Donner, from the University of British Columbia, welcomed the findings, but also said that it should “not be mistaken as a green light for scientists to publicly say or do anything without thought about the repercussions for themselves, the scientific community and the audience.”
###
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
He who controls the vocabulary wins the argument. Activists and other experts litter the trail with intentional ambiguity. The essence of the theory of science and law alike is the elimination of ambiguity; the essence of the practice of these fields is the contrary: to create, foment, and capitalize on ambiguity. This practice reduces issues to politics, to the “talent for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity”, as Hamilton warned in 1788. Advocacy is the bane of reason, logic, civility, debate and hence the university system, of law, democracy and hence republicanism and government, and of science; it is propaganda that blossoms into street demonstrations, riots, mayhem and murder. Taking the right to mean individualism and the left collectivism, advocacy is a tool of the left.
That makes sense, observing and acknowledging process as it is practiced is reasonable as well. Propaganda has been produced and accepted for decades regarding climate. It’s a willful process.
More introspection about skeptics and their own social tendencies might be productive as well;
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/445294/donald-trump-metaphysics-bad-man-good-deeds
It’s not directly related to the climate debate but it fits many who can’t get out of their own orthodoxy about how the climate debate (or any defining political issue) must be maintained. It’s a trend across many issues at the moment. The bulk of skeptics would rather lose maintaining their narrow framing of the climate debate then be forced into alliances and arguments deemed beneath their nobility. Alarmists and warming advocates don’t share this burden. No social backlash can be expected this coming Earthday when scientist will paint their faces and make fools of themselves marching in the streets. Which side objectively dominates the climate debate or in fact much of history?
Reason has a spotty success rate in history. Everyone wants to critique their opposition but I’m convinced the failure on climate policy rests squarely on the alliance of sycophantic skeptics who can’t square their conflicts to reality. The linked article illustrates the point more broadly but it’s the same trend.
More wishful thinking. When it comes to climate, ” it’s worse than we thought”. When it comes to psychological warfare, ” more people are accepting of the deprivation that will result “.
So many possible replies.
How many of the “public”m they asked are are over 50 or 60?
How many of the “public” have a clue that an actual and valid scientific finding is not found by waving a sign someone else paid to have printed?
How many of the “public” realize that an actual scientist welcomes, even if it stings a bit, being shown that he was wrong. (It may take some time to get over. But if his desire to learn is greater than his ego, he’ll get over it. If he doesn’t, he’s a political of egotistical scientist.)
How many of the “public” realize that the shows they see on the SyFy Channel (where only one scientist saves the world) or even Star Trek are FICTION with a bit science thrown in?