According to a recent article in Eos (Doran and Zimmermann, 'Examining the Scientific consensus on Climate Change',Volume 90, Number 3, 2009; p. 22-23 - only available for AGU members), about 58% of the general public in the US thinks that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing the mean global temperature, as opposed to 97% of specialists surveyed. The disproportion between these numbers is a concern, and one possible explanation may be that the science literacy among the general public is low. Perhaps Sherry Seethaler's new book'Lies, Damn Lies, and Science'can be a useful contribution in raising the science literacy?
The book is about science in general and about how science often ismiscommunicatedin the media. It addresses a range of issues, such as how statistics often is misused, how scientific progress is made in general, that the 'scientific method' is not always as straightforward as one might like to think, the influence of stake-holders, the importance of knowing the context of the research, relationships between science and policy, and ploys designed to bypass logic. Many of the points made in the book are probably well known for the RC readership - albeit used in different situations to the case studies discussed in the book. There is also some discussion about AGW, amongst other subjects.
One little paradox is that the book claims (p. xx) that it will empower people of all ages and educational backgrounds to think critically about science-related issues and make well-balanced decisions about them. To me, that sounds like a big promise, and after having read the book, I started to wonder whether that statement is just the sort of claims it tries to make people become more skeptical about? Or maybe Seethaler really did succeed after all - because I saw how the arguments in her book could be applied to this promise?
The book touches on AGW, and does in general do a good job in my opinion. However, I cannot avoid bringing up some small details to pick at: The description of the greenhouse effect is not quite correct, as the reader gets the impression that it involves reflecting infrared radiation back to space (p. 84). That is not the case, as the energy from the sun lies mainly in the visible spectrum, and the infra red light from the Earth is a product from the absorption of the sunlight and a re-emittance due toPlanck's law.
Another point that I think is that the book discusses the controversy around AGW, but this can be a bit misleading. If you look in the climatological field, you may not see much controversy, but if you search the web, you may see something that looks like one. But I think that this controversy to a large extent is constructed out of thin air, an impression I feel is supported by Doran and Zimmermann's,Eosarticle.
I get the impression that'Lies, Damn Lies, and Science'has much in common with the older book'Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics', and that they try to convey similar take-home messages.
'Lies, Damn Lies, and Science' gives a nice collection of anecdotes and general tips. The book has a nice index and overview, so it's easy to find your way through the book. I think the book is very useful for a lot of people - especially students, scientists, journalists, politicians, bureaucrats, and the voters.
I guess that one point is knowing how to access real science and the other is trusting ¡°experts.¡± As a scientist, I feel comfortable relying on experts for information on topics outside my own specialty. For example, when I read about something related to viruses in a newspaper or hear a news report, I feel quite confortable going down the hall and asking my friend and colleague who is a virologist about it. In turn, he might ask me a question if an issue about ecology comes up. I would generally trust news articles in Science and Nature and articles in Discover magazine but usually find that news magazines, like Time and Newsweek get stories mostly right but also leave some wrong impressions.
Americans don¡¯t seem to trust experts. This has some good points and can also create some problems. Our tendency to question authority, even our own teachers, is a stength for American scientists¨Cwe are less reticent than Japanese or Germans, for example, to go against the consensus or are academic mentors. However, we seem to see an extreme mistrust in some quarters in the US and, perhaps other English speaking counties. In large parts of Europe and Asia, my impression is that people assume that experts, such as scientists, professors etc. are both competent and honest and can generally be trusted in their areas of expertise.
The question arises whether this is something in the American character, or is it just due to scientific illiteracy?
It seems to me that the numbers probably reflect politics rather than a lack of information. Evolution is all around us and the subject of zero legitimate scientific dispute, yet a lot of folks reject it. Another case where religious/political views trump reason. Almost all the well informed AGW critics don¡¯t object to AGW and have not done so for *decades*, they object to alarmism.
i (almost) hate to bring it up, but i think it has something to do with religion¡ an embarassingly large (40%?) portion of americans feel compelled to dismiss geology, biology, astronomy and just about every other science to preserve the literal accuracy of the ancient mesopotamian cosmology. to do this they are taught to distrust ¡°secular¡± scientists in favor of the cadre of biblical scientists who have developed an entire alternate reality (e.g. ¡°flood geology¡±). these crazy rationalizations aside, the best thing for them is not to learn anything ¡°scientific¡± because it always seems to bump up against one or another of these alternate realities. for example the notion of us arguing about the historical temperature record going back millions of years is just nonsense to them.
One thing that is NOT going to help science literacy is this constant highlighting of inconsequential contrarians, which has become a staple of the man bites dog journalism over at the New York Times.
It¡¯s nice to see the scientists here at Real Climate filling the role of science reporting.
[Response:We appreciate the sentiment, but we are not journalists and don¡¯t pretend to be. Science reporters are an essential part of this - we are just trying to help them out. - gavin]
Nuclear the ¡®ethanol of 2017¡ä, investment bank says 13 March 2007 Chris Rogers, utilities analyst at JP Morgan, believes that nuclear energy will be key to a zero-greenhouse gas hydrogen economy and that, if they want to be part of it, oil companies will have few options other than embracing nuclear power.
JP Morgan¡¯s report, Trading Climate Change, suggests that within the next decade nuclear energy will be at the top of the world¡¯s agenda, with the resurgence of nuclear a key element both in the drive to reduce carbon emissions from power generation and to develop zero-emission hydrogen-fuelled transport. In fact, the report envisages nuclear energy¡¯s contribution to vehicle fuel services in 10 years¡¯ time to be as important as ethanol is today.
Describing nuclear as the ¡°renewable energy that dare not speak its name,¡± Rogers said that he believes that oil giants BP and Shell may already be looking at nuclear in their strategic plans, although both those companies played down any nuclear interest in press reports. However French oil company Total has already spoken up for future involvement in nuclear, with incoming CEO Christophe de Margerie declaring that the company will one day have to be part of the nuclear industry. Total chairman Thierry Desmarest has also confirmed that the company would be interested in moving into nuclear if a suitable opportunity arose.
Future visions of a so-called hydrogen economy, in which hydrogen replaces hydrocarbons for transport, will require the production of hydrogen without associated carbon dioxide emissions. However the production of hydrogen is energy intensive, and nuclear power would provide an economic means of providing that energy without producing carbon dioxide. The JP Morgan report notes that nuclear-hydrogen offers a good value source of fuel to replace existing hydrocarbon sources, at a US Department of Energy cost estimate of $2.5 per gallon of gasoline equivalent compared to current traditional gasoline production costs are $1.5-2.0 per gallon ($5.68-7.57 per liter). On the downside, it notes that new nuclear build faces is not without challenges on the environmental, economic and planning fronts.
And there¡¯s a beautiful example of the problem ¡ª incomprehension by bobz (misunderstanding ¡°significant¡± and not clear on the verb tense of ¡°is¡± either). One poll question for him confirms his faith that everything published is wrong.
Sadly, I believe people who are currently uninformed about climate change & the multitude of causes behind it will not be reading this book either. I think it¡¯s fantastic to make a book that tries to simplify very complicated & hard-to-understand scientific issues. However, for the most part, the general public is not going to be interested in reading a book about it. It will most likely only be read by people who are already, in some way, shape, or form, interested in the scientific field. People, unfortunately, seem to get most of their science education from movies and/or TV these days.
i would be curious to know whether that ¡°58% of the general public¡± that attribute GW to humans is increasing or decreasing. anybody know? it seems to me (anecdotal evidence only) that it is decreasing?!
The reasons for the disconnect are many, and complex. The fact that American students are not in the top 20 countries, in Math and Science, and have been sinking lower for decades, is part of it. This means that many of the reporters covering Science, have little knowledge about how Science works.
I would guess that well over 25% of reporters do not have more than a superficial understanding what peer review is. (I have worked in television for 29 years).
Many also have an attitude of ¡°an interesting story is more important than some minor issues about science that no one will understand anyway¡±
The post on Real Climate about Bud Ward¡¯s book (12 January 2009 Communicating the Science of Climate Change) is worth a re-read, and both journalists, and Scientists would get much from the book.
The main post and comment #1. refer to the re-emission of energy under Planck¡¯s Law(E=hf). Shouldn¡¯t this be Stefan¡¯s Law, or am I laboring under a misaprehension? In any case, thank you for calling this book to my attention. It should make for enlightening reading, whether it meets its promise or not.
Many Americans trust experts in their own turf, but several topics are subject to well-organizedagnotologyi.e., attempts to produce ignorance or at least doubt.
The Proctor/Schiebinger book referenced there is useful. Chapter 3 is by Naomi Oresekes and Erik Conway, ¡°Challenging Knowledge: How climate science became a victim of the cold war.¡± That is ~ written version of Naomi¡¯sAmerican Denial of Global Warming.
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." -- Thomas Jefferson
We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology. - Carl Sagan
I believe that every right implies a responsibility, every opportunity an obligation; every possession, a duty. - John D. Rockefeller, Jr.
Re: 58% of ordinary people, 97% of scientists say deniersl full of monicur (er bullshit)
March 29 2009, 10:20 PM
LOL... An end-run elaboration on the "Idiocracy", general? According to you enlightened, and entitled elitists, it's a damned wonder we can even dress ourselves in the morning, much less build the greatest nation in human history. Imagine that...
Re: 58% of ordinary people, 97% of scientists say deniersl full of monicur (er bullshit)
March 30 2009, 11:36 AM
I believe you can't have the amount of increased human activity on this earth for the past 150 years and not have some impact. I don't discount that some of global warming is just part of the earth's cycles, but add in the mix of how we have changed--and things change even faster.
Re: 58% of ordinary people, 97% of scientists say deniersl full of monicur (er bullshit)
March 30 2009, 12:00 PM
I believe you can't have the amount of increased human activity on this earth for the past 150 years and not have some impact. I don't discount that some of global warming is just part of the earth's cycles, but add in the mix of how we have changed--and things change even faster.
150 years is scarcely even measureable in earth-time. And the impact of humans is measured on a curve, hardly measureable in the beginning, then climbing steeply during the dirtiest parts of the Industrial Revolution, and then finding a balance between the advent of cleaner technologies, and growing populations. The development of vehicles is a good example with which to measure.(The reason Obama's "model T" comment was so wonderfully goofy) So the bottom line is that the accumulated totals of everything humankind has done in this 150 years as an "impact", don't even come close to the cumulative impact of just a few really robust volcanic eruptions. We aren't even remotely as important as we think we are...
Re: 58% of ordinary people, 97% of scientists say deniersl full of monicur (er bullshit)
March 30 2009, 12:39 PM
So the bottom line is that the accumulated totals of everything humankind has done in this 150 years as an "impact", don't even come close to the cumulative impact of just a few really robust volcanic eruptions.
That's simply not true.
Here's a challenge for you: If your claim were true, one would be able to see the Mt. Pinatubo eruption in the records of atmospheric CO2 concentration. Show me that signal.
Re: 58% of ordinary people, 97% of scientists say deniersl full of monicur (er bullshit)
March 30 2009, 1:39 PM
So the bottom line is that the accumulated totals of everything humankind has done in this 150 years as an "impact", don't even come close to the cumulative impact of just a few really robust volcanic eruptions.
That's simply not true.
Here's a challenge for you: If your claim were true, one would be able to see the Mt. Pinatubo eruption in the records of atmospheric CO2 concentration. Show me that signal.
"Records"? How about Mt. St. Helens? Krakatoa? Did they leave a spike in the records? And what is the significance of such a spike? What about the torching of the Iraqi oil fields during Desert Storm? Could there have been a more horrendous act of ecological sabotage? Yet we "see" no lasting obvious evidence of any permanent damage from these, or do we? You tell me. Is there some cumulative effect that is a part of the climate change models?
Re: 58% of ordinary people, 97% of scientists say deniersl full of monicur (er bullshit)
March 30 2009, 2:34 PM
moonie has hit it dead bang on gus, just as the lowly beaver can change a climax forest centuries in the growing into a marsh in less than one of those centuries, humans have the capacity to degrade their environment to the point it will not sustain them and that capacity is magnified by our technological prowess and short term greed.
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." -- Thomas Jefferson
We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology. - Carl Sagan
I believe that every right implies a responsibility, every opportunity an obligation; every possession, a duty. - John D. Rockefeller, Jr.
Re: 58% of ordinary people, 97% of scientists say deniersl full of monicur (er bullshit)
March 30 2009, 2:53 PM
"Records"? How about Mt. St. Helens? Krakatoa? Did they leave a spike in the records?
No, St. Helens did not. Nor did Pinatubo. (Krakatoa predates monitoring, but if you're going to claim an anomolous high CO2 release there it's your responsibility to support your claim with some evidence.) That's my point.
And what is the significance of such a spike?
The significance is that YOU CLAIM that human contribution doesn't "even come close to the cumulative impact of just a few really robust volcanic eruptions." That's pure, unadulterated 100% bullshit. It's false. As in not true. Get the significance yet? That your claim is simply false? As in not true?
What about the torching of the Iraqi oil fields during Desert Storm? Could there have been a more horrendous act of ecological sabotage? Yet we "see" no lasting obvious evidence of any permanent damage from these, or do we? You tell me. Is there some cumulative effect that is a part of the climate change models?
The Kuwait oil fires consumed an estimated 6 million barrels per day - and not all of that burned, some wound up sinking into the sand on the surface. That's compared to a worldwide consumption of 81 million barrels per day, plus a nearly equivalent amount of coal and natural gas. So you tell me how big a spike you'd expect to see.
This message has been edited by jrooth on Mar 30, 2009 2:55 PM This message has been edited by jrooth on Mar 30, 2009 2:53 PM
Re: 58% of ordinary people, 97% of scientists say deniersl full of monicur (er bullshit)
March 30 2009, 2:57 PM
moonie has hit it dead bang on gus, just as the lowly beaver can change a climax forest centuries in the growing into a marsh in less than one of those centuries, humans have the capacity to degrade their environment to the point it will not sustain them and that capacity is magnified by our technological prowess and short term greed.
Yeah yeah, all those lip-quivering "this fragile planet" documentaries. What horseshit. We are nothing but a recent species of bug, general. Can we eliminate ourselves? Possibly, but unlikely. Can we "destroy the planet"? Not a chance in hell, sport. Find a life why don't you? There's a great big world out here that you can't see from under your bed.
Re: 58% of ordinary people, 97% of scientists say deniersl full of monicur (er bullshit)
March 30 2009, 3:27 PM
gus is squarely in the "if I have to take responsibility for the harm my actions do others, I am not free camp" How hard is it for you to look a little ahead gus? You are like the financial traders who, though they knew it could not go on for ever, figured, I'll get mine before it all goes boom. Well they may have got theirs, but theirs used to be other peoples retirement savings. The other people were not risk takers, but the high risk/high reward people took them down too.
I say take any risk you want insofar as it only effects you. when it effects others, then others have the right to, through the political process, limit the amount of your risk they are willing to catch the fall out from.
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." -- Thomas Jefferson
We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology. - Carl Sagan
I believe that every right implies a responsibility, every opportunity an obligation; every possession, a duty. - John D. Rockefeller, Jr.
Re: 58% of ordinary people, 97% of scientists say deniersl full of monicur (er bullshit)
March 30 2009, 3:54 PM
Is there absolutely nothing short of "eliminating ourselves" or "destroying the planet" that's worth averting in your opinion?
I'm not the one dealing in hysterical hyperbole here, you might ask the general. My opinion has *always* been that I'm willing to listen to *all* viewpoints. Well guess what happens to my attempted objectivity when one side begins to use the same tired old bullshit tactics I've been sick of for 35 years? I don't give a fuck what's "cool", Jan. And I don't stampede worth a damn. The cumulative effects of Man's activities on the planet in general is a hugely complex, hugely provocative, and largely mysterious and hard to measure phenomenon. The subject doesn't lend itself well to bumper-stickers and sound bytes. I *know* that much. And while I appreciate the good-faith efforts of honest people like yourself, or your dad in addressing the issue, I resent the hell out of dipshits like Al Gore. Gosh, we're back to the same old time-worn horse that you and I have been beating for years, aren't we? I haven't changed. I'm *still* willing to listen, and those who are allowed to *represent* your honest efforts are *still* treating me like a fool, or a child, or worse, and *still* doing everything they possibly can to piss me off, and turn me against my own self-interest to be found in the objectivity I know is right.
Don't attempt to *con* me, and don't attempt to *force* me. Show me the hard stuff, and I'll pay attention. I'm not a fool, and sound individual efforts to minimize one's individual "footprint"(gawd...) are as much a matter of common sense as they are a matter of "being on board". We as a citizenry have made *huge* changes for the better in the way we live over the last 30 years. We will either intercept the curve, and inhibit, stall, or reverse the trends, or we won't. If we don't, it *will not* be some horrendous cataclysm! It will emerge as a priority in need of immediate intense focus, and *then* we as a nation, or as a planet, *will* do what is necessary to successfully adress the problem. It's how we've done business since we emerged from caves, and with every crisis we have faced as a species ever since, there have *always* been a gaggle of jackasses running in circles and screaming hysterically. Pardon me if I don't take them seriously this time around.
Re: 58% of ordinary people, 97% of scientists say deniersl full of monicur (er bullshit)
March 30 2009, 4:03 PM
gus is squarely in the "if I have to take responsibility for the harm my actions do others, I am not free camp" How hard is it for you to look a little ahead gus? You are like the financial traders who, though they knew it could not go on for ever, figured, I'll get mine before it all goes boom. Well they may have got theirs, but theirs used to be other peoples retirement savings. The other people were not risk takers, but the high risk/high reward people took them down too.
Your wires are crossed exactly 180* general. It's *my* side that preaches individual responsibility, remember? You know, realizing that it's *my* money in that retirement fund, and taking it upon *myself* to see and control who is doing what with it? Getting out of bed makes each and every one of us a "risk taker". Uncle Sugar can't fix that general, no matter how hard you want to con us into thinking he can.
I say take any risk you want insofar as it only effects you. when it effects others, then others have the right to, through the political process, limit the amount of your risk they are willing to catch the fall out from.
Sounds good on paper. So kill all the lawyers, and agenda-driven politicians, and you might have something. Naivete' doesn't become you general, even in the middle of one of your cons.
Re: 58% of ordinary people, 97% of scientists say deniersl full of monicur (er bullshit)
March 30 2009, 4:11 PM
your side does not preach individual responsibility gus, it hides behind it.
It ignores the fact that what you do affects others, if some one does not feed or educate their kids, your side objects to the kids being fed in school on the grounds it was the individual responsibility of the parent to provide.
If a business wants to gravy train and get its educated work force from some where else, it whines and crys that it is the individual responsibility of the person to become educated and it is un-fair to require the business to pay taxes for schools, or for roads or police and fire for that matter, after all the business is providing jobs and income, you all collectively the individual responsibility to provide for it.
As man does not exist in a vacuum, it is each man's individual responsibility to take care that his actions do not unnecessarily harm others.
No gus, the conservative has never believed in individual responsibility, the conservative has always preached that might makes right and get out of my way as I act like a dog in the manger. It is the liberal who understands individual responsibility.
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." -- Thomas Jefferson
We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology. - Carl Sagan
I believe that every right implies a responsibility, every opportunity an obligation; every possession, a duty. - John D. Rockefeller, Jr.
Re: 58% of ordinary people, 97% of scientists say deniersl full of monicur (er bullshit)
March 30 2009, 5:43 PM
It ignores the fact that what you do affects others, if some one does not feed or educate their kids, your side objects to the kids being fed in school on the grounds it was the individual responsibility of the parent to provide.
I see, so these parents aren't "individuals"? What they "do" in not feeding their kids doesn't affect others? You're babbling in circles general. Cut to the chase, I've seen it before. You want to be King, and nobody will let you.
Re: 58% of ordinary people, 97% of scientists say deniersl full of monicur (er bullshit)
March 30 2009, 6:15 PM
My opinion has always been that I'm willing to listen to all viewpoints. Well guess what happens to my attempted objectivity when one side begins to use the same tired old bullshit tactics I've been sick of for 35 years?
You say you're willing to listen, but you don't. Instead, you continually take refuge in talking about "moonbats" etc. and happily repeating any bullshit you've heard somewhere (like the stuff above about volcanoes) that supports your predilictions. Your default position is to assume that anything you don't like isn't true and anything you do like is true and you won't do the work to really find out the truth.
Re: 58% of ordinary people, 97% of scientists say deniersl full of monicur (er bullshit)
March 30 2009, 6:20 PM
You say you're willing to listen, but you don't. Instead, you continually take refuge in talking about "moonbats" etc. and happily repeating any bullshit you've heard somewhere (like the stuff above about volcanoes) that supports your predilictions. Your default position is to assume that anything you don't like isn't true and anything you do like is true and you won't do the work to really find out the truth.
Yes, I do listen, and if this cul de sac that Jim finds so handy and comfy works for you as well, so be it.
gus.
Current Topic - 58% of ordinary people, 97% of scientists say deniersl full of monicur (er bullshit)
According to a recent article in Eos (
![[linked image]](http://www.network54.com/Realm/JansRealm/wfelix.gif)