Nisbet writes:
In contrast to individuals serving as advocates, national science organizations, universities, and other expert institutions have a duty instead to avoid partisan advocacy and to sponsor efforts at civic education and public engagement. These efforts should seek to not only improve technical understanding of climate science, but also understanding of the social, political, and ethical dimensions of the issue. These efforts are not designed to argue in favor of any one policy or political party, but should rather provide the motivation and opportunities for citizens to connect, plan, learn, and voice their preferences on climate change.See Matt's post for those resources.
The difference between deficit-model activism and public engagement, unfortunately, is too often confused by how science communication is discussed at popular blogs, books, in talks, in reports, and in commentary articles. In a series of journal articles over the past few years, I have sought to distinguish and explain the important differences and to provide clarity. At the end of this post, I have included links to these resources and to related blog posts.
7 comments:
It seems to me that this analysis misses the dominant model of discourse out there, namely the Marxist one: that society is divided into classes at war with each other, and that the beliefs of each class do not reflect an objective truth but are in aid of the advantage over other classes.
To parse that into Nisbet's aspects, we might say:
Major influence on beliefs: does the belief advance class power and prestige?
Proposed solution: take power from other classes
Communication is: propaganda
"reaching the public" is: fooling them
Scientists are: a priesthood of the political class
the goal: opiate for the masses
The ironic point is, of course that this Marxist model is typically held by ... conservatives! Academics, also of course, have a similar take on the conservative "class", with a few names changed. But I think that to some extent academics have only themselves to blame for "communicating" the Marxist epistemology all too well over the past century.
Josh, correct on all counts. Climate change is class warfare. The gullible and ignorant broadsheet classes think they are fighting big business (the oil companies) when big oil and the banks are the ones behind the whole carbon trading scam.
How dumb do you have to be to believe the Guardian and NYT are anti business, or that they would publish Pentagon leaked data from an FBI fugitive (wikileaks) ? Very dumb indeed. How about Blair, Brown, Mandelsson, Obama, Clinton and the millionaire club that is the Democratic Party in both houses ? Are they anti business ?
The parties haven't simply changed colours (blue, red), they have changed constituencies. The left are the well paid educated masses and the right are the poor, uneducated masses. The war has become cultural rather than economic because there is no economic left.
Obama was preferred to Clinton because they wanted someone (like Blair) who would permanently remove the connection between the left party and the working classes. They have absolutely no representation.
Feminism, multiculturalism and environmentalism, have all been used to destroy the working classes with the willing help of broadsheet man. It means cheap labour for him. Cheap plumbers, au pairs and wine waiters. Carbon trading will lead to the outsourcing of more and more from the bottom up. Cheaper everything.
Of course, if anyone is responsible for CO2, he is the one. Read the broadsheet glossy mags or Guardian website adverts for the evidence. It isn't hypocrisy, they don't have the awareness for that.
Chomsky yet again. Do you think the average NYT reader has any idea of the following ?
"For over 30 years, real incomes have stagnated or declined. This is in large part the consequence of the decision in the 1970s to financialize the economy.There is class resentment, he noted."
Conclusion. Conspiracy theorists don't get invited to dinner parties.
Maybe if many in the Climate Science community used the "Honesty Model" there wouldn't be such a problem.
Listening to Dr. Mann explain the "hide the decline" scandal is an opportunity to have your imagination stretched to the point of incredulity, in fact to the point of disbelief.
I just put up a blog post on a similar issue. It concludes:
"If we want the public's decisions regarding climate change to be based on sound science, the objective should not be to provide a science education to the public. Instead, it should be to do all we can to make sure that those whom the public trusts are worthy of that trust."
http://blogs.chron.com/climateabyss/2010/11/yale_exam_part_3.html
n-g
I agree, the problem is that this is a social class who's principal means of communication with the public is the lie. Everything about global warming is a lie. The science, the politics and the journalism. The crash in UK belief came about because of climategate and an avalanche of moronic propaganda, some it (e.g. 10:10) firmly aimed at the professional classes with promises of champagne breakfasts and luvvy celebrities.
The education system is often sold to students in ways much less honest than Madison Avenue would attempt. I have a friend who was an AGW enthusiast until the second year of her geology degree (advertised as being in the top 5 in the UK ) and it dawned on her that the people who were messing her about were very much of the same sub species as Michael Mann and Phil Jones. I read her emails from the head of department and they were pretty awful.
They bend the truth in great part because they think they have authority, and that they know best. They get a cleaner planet, the higher electricity costs won't bother them and damn the peasants. That is the wicked irony of Mann and his pals supporting the Democrats.
Interesting, though I also see a paradox between the second way (public engagement) and the criticism (e.g. by you, Curry and others) on many mainstream climate scientists that they blur the line between their personal values and the science they claim to represent.
How can a scientist "connect an environmental problem to public (!) values" without blurring that line? If I try to do that I'm accused of assuming to know what the public values are.
The same paradox is there between engaging effectively with the public (by making things personal and telling a story) versus the traditional scientific way of distance and rationality (which is very effective in the realm of science but very ineffective in the realm of public communication and engagement)
See also
http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2009/12/11/the-public-role-of-scientists/
Bart
-6-Bart
Where did you see me talking about blurring a line between science and personal values? Doesn't sound like something I'd argue.
I wrote about about this "paradox" and offered various ways to deal with it (The Honest Broker). Many climate scientists want to "swim without getting wet" -- and don't like to be told that is impossible. It is true nonetheless;-)
Post a Comment