[This post, an abstract of a longer article from The American, was written with the assistance of Hiwa Alaghebandian, an energy and environment research assistant at AEI. Dr. Green’s post The Death Spiral for Climate Alarmism Continues (June 2, 2010) is one of the most viewed and influential published at MasterResource.]
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:
Bush 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. Another view 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 and science reporters 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.” Science reporters and activists also adopted the authoritarian voice.
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.”
A Lexis Nexis search, indeed, finds a growing trend toward “authoritarian” phrasing of scientific findings in recent decades. Phrases such as “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” have become all too common. One phrase, in particular, “Science says we must,” has become dramatically more frequent in recent years.
Does the Public Smell a Rat?
Whether because of media sensationalism, a desire by some senior academics for greater relevance, or just the spread of activism through the university and media, scientists and their translators in the media stopped speaking objectively and started telling people what to do. And people don’t take well to that, particularly when they’re unable to evaluate the information that supposedly requires them to give up their SUV, their celebratory cigar, or their chicken nuggets.
The public’s trust is further undermined by scientific scandals, such as the recent ClimateGate affair, when it became apparent that climate scientists, if not overtly cooking their books, were behaving as partisans out to create a unified perception of the climate in order to advance a policy agenda. The climate community is probably the biggest user of the authoritarian voice, with frequent pronouncements that “the science says we must limit atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations to 350 parts per million,” or some dire outcome will eventuate.
Friends of the Earth writes, “For example, science tells us we must reduce our global greenhouse gas emissions to prevent dangerous climate change.” America’s climate change negotiator in Copenhagen is quoted by World Wildlife Fund as saying, “China must do significantly more if we are to have a chance to solve the problem and to arrive at an international agreement that achieves what science tells us we must.” Science as dictator—not a pretty sight.
Conclusion
If science wants to redeem itself and regain its place with the public’s affection, scientists need to come out every time some politician says, “The science says we must…” and reply, “Science only tells us what is. It does not, and can never tell us what we should or must do.” If they say that often enough, and loudly enough, they might be able to reclaim the mantle of objectivity that they’ve given up over the last 40 years by letting themselves become the regulatory state’s ultimate appeal to authority. Hey, you know, perhaps Biba has something there—maybe science does need better PR!
Kenneth P. Green is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, where Hiwa Alaghebandian is an energy and environment research assistant.
I’m not sure that this quite hits the nail on the head. The problem with climate science is not that it tells us we must do things, because if it’s true then we can all see the value of doing something, the main problem is the certainty that advocates have painted. Basic rule, the only things in life that are certain are death and taxes and most people are aware of it.
We all know the key phrases ‘the science is settled’, ‘the debate is over’, ‘AGW is clearly happening’, etc. They are just plain wrong. Science is never settled, there never was a debate and proving the contribution of man to an already chaotic climate is actually extremely difficult. If anything climate science suffers from too much PR. They’ve promoted more than what they could prove and used certain scientists’ suspicions and fears as if they were fact. In a desire to get us all moving they’ve lied by omission or lied by exaggeration.
Now initially that seemed like a good plan because it did get global warming onto the centre stage but eventually the real facts begin to leak out. At that point people start to wonder where the exaggeration starts and stops. How much is fact and how much is guesswork. When people are seen to be more advocate than impartial truth seeker their credibility is damaged and too many of the loudest voices in climate science and policy are clearly biased and/or benefiting financially from the situation. If they’re the representatives, how can we trust the science? An avalanche of doubt has been triggered and so far little has been done to try and stop it.
The investigations into the CRU and Mr Mann were a good opportunity to demonstrate that the core of climate science was honest and rigorous. They failed abysmally. I’d even go as far to say that they added to the concerns about the climate science machine.
The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth should be the guideline for climate science and PR is the enemy of truth. When people believe, they will forgive you for telling them what to do. If they don’t believe they’ll actively work against you. You get a stalemate, which is exactly what we have now. But what if the climate science isn’t convincing enough? Too bad. Ultimately mankind has to make it’s own decisions. Climate scientists and politicians can’t make them for us, no matter how much they might want to.
What science needs is a bit of humility. If you are of a certain age, like me, you grew up during a time when science did many wonderful things. Physical sciences gave us nuclear power, television, chemical compounds and wonder of all, space travel. Medical science gave us cures for diseases such as polio. We believed science = progress.
But now science, for whatever reason, has branched off into two distinct streams. The first is the one we are accustomed to, science to useful development. Whether that is theoretical physics or applied such as in medicine. The second branch is what I like to think of as “reactionary science” or “luddite science”. The thesis of “reactionary science” goes something like this, “Remember all the neat stuff we promised you that would make your lives better? Well, now we’re going to tell you how it’s going to kill you and destroy the earth!”
What’s the difference between overwrought climate scientists and the guy on the street corner proclaiming the end is nigh? As a general rule, people aren’t persuaded by doomsayers. It seems to me that the solution chosen by the climate lobby is nothing more than to attack skeptics and turn up the volume. Their behavior indicts their argument.
Their refusal to discuss their ultimate aims also indicts their argument. They talk about “7% by 2012”, “83% by 2050”, but they won’t talk about 100% by 2100. They won’t say that atmospheric concentrations of CO2 cannot be stabilized until global annual CO2 emissions decrease to zero. They say very little about the ~18% of GHG emissions which are the result of raising meat animals, which must also be eliminated. They also say very little about population controls, which many of them believe must be imposed as part of the “solution” to the “problem” they perceive. They say even less about their perceived “need” for world government, probably brought to you by the same “smartest people in the room” who brought you the Iraq “Oil for Palaces, Payloads and Payoffs” program.
BOHICA
Pure BS. The distinction between scientists telling the public what the facts are and telling the public what the facts are and what they should do is entirely artificial. Science can not only tell you what the facts are, it can tell you how you can get where you want to be based on the facts. If smoking kills, then of course you have to stop smoking if you want to increase your life expectancy. That’s a self-evident statement. If you are going to argue that increased life expectancy and reducing the incidence of lung cancer is bad, then you have an awful lot of arguing to do. It is exactly the same things with AGW – it is self-evident that if we are to avoid dangerous climate change, we have to stop emitting CO2. Where exactly is the patronizing?
If anything, scientists have been very very soft on the issue, precisely because they are aware of the impact their words may have. The rational thing to do given the reality of climate change alone is to go cold turkey now. But you will not hear any major climate scientists saying that. So what exactly is it that you are complaining about?
The above reveals utter ignorance of what science is and what it isn’t. What you are describing is technology. Science is a completely different beast. The goal of science is to improve our understanding of the world around us. A consequence of this is that improved understanding of the world around us allows us to build cool gadgets (which we do) and to take better informed decisions about what we do to adapt to this world (which we tend not to do). But the former is technology and not science and not science, and the overt focus on technology is very anti-intellectual and it slowly kills science. Increasing understanding of the world is indeed progress (and I happen to think that iPhones aren’t), but that’s not how most people see it
The reason you don’t see the same kind of fundamental discoveries as in the first two thirds of the 20th century is twofold. First, the science has gotten very complicated, and although there is a lot of very exciting stuff, few people can understand it. Second, and closely related, the low hanging fruit has been picked up and now by necessity the pace of progress is slowing down (how many years is it taking for the LHC to come online?)
Again, that anti-intellectualism 101 = “If it has no practical application, it is useless”. Anti-intellectualism = very bad.
That’s a complete misrepresentation of the situation, arising from the mixing up of technology with science in your mind.
One has decades of experience and research in the field plus mountains of data to back up his claim, the other doesn’t
That much we can agree on
.
At what point is the Earth overpopulated according to you? When there is 1 person per square meter? of land surface? Or it can never be overpopulated? Give us a number and a lifestyle level. The people who have studied this subject tend to come to a number that’s invariably much smaller than the current population and that’s usually without including all the limiting factors.
If you have to solve global problems, how are you going to do it with 200 states with equal voting rights and with very different agendas? Well, it’s very simple, you can’t do it, and we aren’t doing it. What is your suggestion?
Kelly Bush suggests that we start a propaganda campaign to convince people that science isn’t propaganda. Works for me.
If you grew up in LA in the 50’s and 60’s, you got an idea of how we were polluting the atmosphere, mainly because you couldn’t breathe. We had an ozone hole once. Discontinuing use of chlorofluorocarbons did the trick. Science and policy worked. Why is it that people don’t want to believe we’re having a major impact on climate with massive CO2 emissions from the beginnings of the Industrial Revolution to today? They don’t like they’ll have to face up to change?
OT: this is an interesting site, new to me, that I would like to follow. It seems based on “free market” thinking. First of all, find me a free market that didn’t want government protection and subsidy, then tell me how the free market is going to get us out of the huge energy mess they’ve channeled us into. Where has responsible leadership been except to quick quarterly profits? How can your enabler be your savior?
I look forward to articles on these questions.
Another perceptive article from MR. Let me get to the numb of things and quote a wonderful scientist on the nature of his work: “Science is the disinterested search for the objective truth about the material world.” And, from another great scientist, “Theories crumble, but good observations never fade.” Finally, here’s another from another: “The less one knows about the universe, the easier it is to explain.”
To the extent that anyone has a financial or ideological stake in the outcome of inquiry about truth, that inquiry can hardly be considered dispassionate. And therefore it is not science, for science is about skeptical inquiry. To the extent that observations cannot be scrutinized and reproduced independently, they cannot be considered scientific observations, no matter how otherwise compelling their “theoretical” origins.
Science is not an institution; it is a method. And its conclusions are always provisional. Let me once again provide a long quote by Richard Feynman here:
“But there is one feature I notice that is generally missing in cargo cult science. That is the idea that we all hope you have learned in studying science in school–we never explicitly say what this is, but just hope that you catch on by all the examples of scientific
investigation. It is interesting, therefore, to bring it out now
and speak of it explicitly. It’s a kind of scientific integrity,
a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of
utter honesty–a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if
you’re doing an experiment, you should report everything that you
think might make it invalid–not only what you think is right about
it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and
things you thought of that you’ve eliminated by some other
experiment, and how they worked–to make sure the other fellow can
tell they have been eliminated.
“Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be
given, if you know them. You must do the best you can–if you know
anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong–to explain it. If you
make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then
you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well
as those that agree with it. There is also a more subtle problem.
When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate
theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that
those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea
for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else
come out right, in addition.”
I believe that Feynman would be both bemused and disturbed by the way the extremely provisional, almost inchoate findings of “climate science” have been garlanded around various public policy altars. Investing trillions of dollars and risking modern economic stability on 100 year predictions that cannot be properly accounted for is paralleled only in the realm of religion, whose episodic eschatological forecasts helped promote the building of countless cathedrals and fostered the buying and selling of indulgences to mitigate life in the hereafter. There are many current secular versions of these practices circulating throughout the politics of climate.
Blaise Pascal’s Wager was neither scientific nor especially comforting to the faithful. And yet it is now being resurrected by “institutional” science to justify policies that not even a thirteenth century pope would have wrought.
You do realize that this is the same blog that claims that “There is a problem if you look from the physical science point of view; your mistake is that you aren’t looking at it as an economist”?
So what right exactly do you have to preach about the scientific method here when the authors of that website (whose views you no doubt share) have explicitly stated that they are entirely politically motivated and as far as they are concerned science can go to hell.
GM:
The world of ideas is complicated and complex, often both at the same time. Information about climate and the methods of studying it covers an infinity of ground and a range of disciplines, some of which are so new that baseline data is even now being constructed. Those who would base public policy on such a flimsy understanding are merely poseurs, even if they are well meaning.
As a environmentalist concerned about the way culture often too rudely imposed itself upon the earth, I became involved with energy issues, particularly electricity production. But as an historian, I was aware of how the human condition had, by any reasonable standards, vastly improved over the last millennium with advances in technology and better ways of knowing. People are addicted to prosperity, which of course will not ensure happiness but may be a general precondition for it. I think electricity provides the basis of a prosperous, productive modernity–and, literally, a more enlightened future. Our shared goals should insure that electricity service be reliable, affordable, and secure. I also think it reasonable, on behalf of public health concerns, for government to set air quality standards while protecting sensitive ecosystems and threatened/endangered species. Setting standards is one thing. Picking winners and losers about how these standards are achieved is something else. This is, for me, anathema–and a prescription for failure, since so much opportunity costs are now and will continue to be squandered down the ratholes dug by corporate lobbyists, including those claiming to be saving the world. The politicalization of our energy supply should concern everyone. Which is the big tent that Master Resource has built, where people steeped in all sorts of political and ideological traditions can submit their ideas. Like others, however, I’m bored by political partisanship and ideologues. What matters is the better idea.
I don’t know what guilt by association you mean to imply. I see nothing on this website that says people believe science can go to hell. Quite the contrary. But I do agree with Feynman that to know any little thing well often requires a lifetime of effort, given the nuanced ways involved with knowing. I don’t confuse engineering with science and believe that technology is so embedded in the nature of our species that it is a byproduct of all we do, including the measurements involved in science and the painting of the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. Along with the making and use of silverware.
As I told you in an earlier post, I believe economists, by the way they organize knowledge and offer alternative ways of considering priorities within hierarchies of values, contribute meaningfully to a more informed world. However, they, like you and me, must ultimately submit any conclusions to be vetted by reality.
Or what’s a heaven for…?
GM { 08.10.10 at 8:07 pm }
If population control and global governance are an essential part of the “solution”, why not discus them openly? Why try to hide those elements of the solution “in the corner in the dark”, along with the need to eliminate animal husbandry to avoid the GHG emissions which result?
If it is necessary to completely eliminate CO2 emissions to stabilize atmospheric CO2 concentrations at some level, why not discuss that, rather than some lesser reduction which wouldn’t get the job done?
Why not “open the kimono” and let everyone who would be affected understand the entire picture of our future? Enquiring minds want to know. 🙂