Cartoon by Josh.
Matthew C. Nisbet at Slate is at stage 3.
But urgent calls to escalate the war against climate skeptics may lead scientists and their organizations into a dangerous trap, fueling further political disagreement while risking public trust in science. A major transformation is needed in how scientists and their organizations engage the public and policymakers. The new direction is not to become more political and confrontational on the national stage, but to seek opportunities for greater public interaction, dialogue, and partnerships in communities across the country.
…
By getting out of the lab and away from their echo chamber of like-minded views about climate politics, researchers would learn how other people view climate change, and what should and can be done about it. In the end, scientists are better off as community-based diplomats than cable news and blogosphere culture warriors.
While I have a few nitpicking points – like he just doesn’t get it – I’m in broad agreement. As I’ve always argued there are good reasons not to pollute and good reasons to invest in the environment. The AGW lobby adopted an ‘our way or the highway’ approach to communication and have gotten into a lot of strife. So Nisbet’s call for a negotiated surrender and a return to basics and civility should be welcomed. Scientists have strayed far beyond the limits of science and need to get back into the lab (and not out of it as Nisbet suggests) but do also need to better explain what they do, and why it is important. Leave the grand plans for social engineering to the politicians.
(HT: Roger Pielke, Jr.)
Yes, there are excellent reasons to look after the environment, on the conservate principle of conserving good things. There are also overwhelming reasons to develop the major alternative energy source, that is nuclear.
On the personal level there are good reasons to be prudent about using power. Especially the “hip pocket reason”. With the huge rise in power prices looming up, this is going to be a real incentive pretty soon!
In terms of the bigger debate, what about some more attention to Lomborg? He takes the line (which is possibly the same as Lord Monkton) that there is probably some warming but we can’t stop it and so instead we should learn how to handle it in a cost-effective manner.
Rafe
20 Mar 10 at 10:26 am
But they won’t as the science has basically become so politicized and money grubbing.
The only thing to do is to figure ways of changing the guard and try to bring people like Judith Curry to the top. The old guard need to go.
JC
20 Mar 10 at 5:08 pm
The old guard need to go.
.
Agree.
.
I’d also suggest that a new respect for science enter public discourse. This means not doing things like quoting a scientist out of context and inferring an opinion not held by same.
.
I haven’t seen anything that discredits the AGW theory entirely. If there was any such thing News Ltd papers would howl at the Moon for a month.
Adrien
20 Mar 10 at 5:27 pm
I’d also suggest that a new respect for science enter public discourse.
When scientists make more qualified claims this will inevitably re-emerge. And I don’t see why respect for science is any more important than say respect for the practice of law.
I haven’t seen anything that discredits the AGW theory entirely.
This is beside the point since no one really believes that every thing in climate science is wrong (certainly I don’t); it was never an all or nothing proposition.
dover_beach
20 Mar 10 at 5:42 pm
Adrien
Read the Judith Curry interview. She’s a believer in AGW theory and comes across as the voice of the future.
She really is pretty decent and wants to see an open door policy in the science.
http://discovermagazine.com/2010/apr/10-it.s-gettin-hot-in-here-big-battle-over-climate-science/article_view?searchterm=michael%20mann&b_start:int=0
JC
20 Mar 10 at 5:45 pm
“With the huge rise in power prices looming up, this is going to be a real incentive pretty soon!”
bang! goes the argument against a CPRS
rog
20 Mar 10 at 6:24 pm
When JC speaks about money grubbing politicking he speaks as a money grubbing politicker, or whatever the appropriate adj or noun is.
rog
20 Mar 10 at 6:26 pm
bang! goes the argument against a CPRS
Kennedy to De Gualle 1960 at a meeting in Paris.
JC
20 Mar 10 at 6:50 pm