February 15, 2022
Dear Friends and Family,
The political world decreed decades ago that Climate Change science was settled with a consensus of 97% of scientists.
Yet, a very noted scientist, Steven Koonin reported in our last two epilogues that Climate Science is decidedly unsettled. So why is he reporting the crucial parts of science are unsettled when the narrative which Koonin labels as “THE SCIENCE” is so overwhelming different?
My conclusion is “THE SCIENCE” is in actuality Political Science and it is settled broadly in the minds of vocal elites of the world but science based on scientific methods of investigation, debate, and well perform peer review is unsettled. Also the Political Science has hyped the issue to a state of alarmism and fear via misinformation, lack of knowledge, and misplaced political power. Further, the real science that has been settled does not support the alarmism to which the political science has taken the issue – no where close as detailed in Epilogues 1 & 2.
This epilogue looks at each of our primary influencers in assessing and communicating the Climate Change issue to provide some insight on why this gap in understanding and reporting exists. The influencers include: the media, politicians, some climate change scientists, activists and NGOs, the public, and the IPCC.
Next: The next epilogue features excerpts from the book The Future We Choose, written by two people who negotiated the Paris Climate Accord. It provides a different perspective on the issue from that of the first three epilogues.
Happy Learning,
Harley
Dear Friends and Family,
The political world decreed decades ago that Climate Change science was settled with a consensus of 97% of scientists.
Yet, a very noted scientist, Steven Koonin reported in our last two epilogues that Climate Science is decidedly unsettled. So why is he reporting the crucial parts of science are unsettled when the narrative which Koonin labels as “THE SCIENCE” is so overwhelming different?
My conclusion is “THE SCIENCE” is in actuality Political Science and it is settled broadly in the minds of vocal elites of the world but science based on scientific methods of investigation, debate, and well perform peer review is unsettled. Also the Political Science has hyped the issue to a state of alarmism and fear via misinformation, lack of knowledge, and misplaced political power. Further, the real science that has been settled does not support the alarmism to which the political science has taken the issue – no where close as detailed in Epilogues 1 & 2.
This epilogue looks at each of our primary influencers in assessing and communicating the Climate Change issue to provide some insight on why this gap in understanding and reporting exists. The influencers include: the media, politicians, some climate change scientists, activists and NGOs, the public, and the IPCC.
Next: The next epilogue features excerpts from the book The Future We Choose, written by two people who negotiated the Paris Climate Accord. It provides a different perspective on the issue from that of the first three epilogues.
Happy Learning,
Harley
CLIMATE CHANGE EPILOGUES –Epilogue 3
THE COMMUNICATION INFLUENCERS – EXCERPTS
COMMUNICATING “THE SCIENCE”: If crucial parts of the science really are unsettled, as we’ve seen, why is the narrative of “THE SCIENCE” so different? Can it really be that the multiplicity of stakeholders in climate matters – scientists, scientific institution, activists and NGOs, the media, politicians – are all contributing to misinformation in the service of persuasion? And why has THE SCIENCE gained such prominence over science?
Observing this scene over the years, I’ve given a lot of thought to how the communication of climate science works. I have seen this process up close, and my direct experiences, along with some universal truths about humans, suggest not some secret cabal, but rather a self-reinforcing alignment of perspectives and interests. Let’s look at the most important players in turn.
The Media: Many newsrooms are shrinking, and serious in-depth reporting is becoming less common. Many people reporting on climate don’t have a background in science. This is a particular problem because the IPCC assessment reports themselves can be misleading, especially to non-experts. Science stories are almost always stories of nuance; they require time and research. Unfortunately, the pace of the news cycle has only become more frantic, and reporters and editors have less time than ever. The diversity and ubiquity of modern media have increased the demand for fresh “content” and the competition to be the first to post a story.
As I interact with journalists, I realize that for some, “climate change” has become a cause and a mission – to save the world from destruction by humans – so that packing alarm into whatever the story becomes the “right” thing to do, even an obligation. This has been compounded by the rise of a new job category: “climate reporters.” Their mission is largely predetermined; if they don’t have a narrative of doom to report, they won’t get into the paper or on the air.
Source: Unsettled by Steven Koonin (2021)
Politicians: Politicians win elections by arousing passion and commitment from voters – by motivating and persuading. The threat of climate catastrophe – whether storms, droughts, rising seas, failed crops, or economic collapse – resonates with everyone. And this threat can be portrayed as both urgent and yet distant enough so that a politician’s dire predictions will be tested only decades after they’ve left office. Unfortunately, while climate science and associated energy issues are complicated, complexity and nuance don’t lend themselves at all well to political messaging. So, the science is jettisoned in favor of THE SCIENCE, and “simplified” for use in the political arena, which allows the required actions to be portrayed simply as well – just eliminate fossil fuels to save the planet.
It’s hard to rally the base with uncertainty. Politicians on the left find it inconvenient to discuss scientific uncertainties of the magnitude of the challenge in reducing human influences. Instead, they declared the science settled and label anyone who questions that conclusion “a denier” lumping conscientious scientists advocating for less persuasion and more research in with those openly hostile to science itself.
Source: Unsettled by Steven E. Koonin (2021)
Scientists: Carl Wunsch, a prominent oceanographer from MIT who has long urged scientists to be realistic in their portrayal of the science, has written about the pressure on climate scientists to produce splashy results:
THE COMMUNICATION INFLUENCERS – EXCERPTS
COMMUNICATING “THE SCIENCE”: If crucial parts of the science really are unsettled, as we’ve seen, why is the narrative of “THE SCIENCE” so different? Can it really be that the multiplicity of stakeholders in climate matters – scientists, scientific institution, activists and NGOs, the media, politicians – are all contributing to misinformation in the service of persuasion? And why has THE SCIENCE gained such prominence over science?
Observing this scene over the years, I’ve given a lot of thought to how the communication of climate science works. I have seen this process up close, and my direct experiences, along with some universal truths about humans, suggest not some secret cabal, but rather a self-reinforcing alignment of perspectives and interests. Let’s look at the most important players in turn.
The Media: Many newsrooms are shrinking, and serious in-depth reporting is becoming less common. Many people reporting on climate don’t have a background in science. This is a particular problem because the IPCC assessment reports themselves can be misleading, especially to non-experts. Science stories are almost always stories of nuance; they require time and research. Unfortunately, the pace of the news cycle has only become more frantic, and reporters and editors have less time than ever. The diversity and ubiquity of modern media have increased the demand for fresh “content” and the competition to be the first to post a story.
As I interact with journalists, I realize that for some, “climate change” has become a cause and a mission – to save the world from destruction by humans – so that packing alarm into whatever the story becomes the “right” thing to do, even an obligation. This has been compounded by the rise of a new job category: “climate reporters.” Their mission is largely predetermined; if they don’t have a narrative of doom to report, they won’t get into the paper or on the air.
Source: Unsettled by Steven Koonin (2021)
Politicians: Politicians win elections by arousing passion and commitment from voters – by motivating and persuading. The threat of climate catastrophe – whether storms, droughts, rising seas, failed crops, or economic collapse – resonates with everyone. And this threat can be portrayed as both urgent and yet distant enough so that a politician’s dire predictions will be tested only decades after they’ve left office. Unfortunately, while climate science and associated energy issues are complicated, complexity and nuance don’t lend themselves at all well to political messaging. So, the science is jettisoned in favor of THE SCIENCE, and “simplified” for use in the political arena, which allows the required actions to be portrayed simply as well – just eliminate fossil fuels to save the planet.
It’s hard to rally the base with uncertainty. Politicians on the left find it inconvenient to discuss scientific uncertainties of the magnitude of the challenge in reducing human influences. Instead, they declared the science settled and label anyone who questions that conclusion “a denier” lumping conscientious scientists advocating for less persuasion and more research in with those openly hostile to science itself.
Source: Unsettled by Steven E. Koonin (2021)
Scientists: Carl Wunsch, a prominent oceanographer from MIT who has long urged scientists to be realistic in their portrayal of the science, has written about the pressure on climate scientists to produce splashy results:
The central problem of climate science is to ask what you do and say when your data are, by almost any standard inadequate? If I spend three years analyzing my data, and the only defensible inference is that “the data are inadequate to answer the question,” how do you publish? How do you get your grant renewed? A common answer is to distort the calculation of the uncertainty, or ignore it all together, and proclaim an exciting story that the New York Times will pick up. A lot of this is somewhat like what goes on in the medical business. Small, poorly controlled studies are used to proclaim the efficacy of some new drug or treatment. How many such stories have been withdrawn years later when enough adequate data became available?
Major changes in society are being advocated and trillions will be spent, all based on the finding of climate science. That science should be open to intense scrutiny and questioning, and scientists should approach it with their usual critical objectivity. And they shouldn’t have to be afraid when they do.
Activists and Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs): If you believe there is a “climate emergency,” have built an organization on that premise, and rely upon you donors’ continuing commitment to the cause, projecting urgency is crucial. But these are also groups, with their own climate and energy agendas. For many, the “Climate Crisis” is their entire raison d’etre. And they are powerful political actors, who mobilize supporters, raise money, run campaigns, and wield political power.
The Public: As around the world, most citizens in America are not scientists, and the educational system does not deliver much in the way of scientific literacy to the wider public. Most people do not have the ability to examine the science themselves, and they have neither the time nor the inclination to do so. Many increasingly get their information from social media, where it is far too easy to promote misinformation or disinformation. And in my experience, people tend to believe – and trust – their chosen media in areas outside their expertise.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC): The IPCC’s “Summaries for Policymakers” are heavily influenced, if not written, by governments that have interests in promoting particular policies. There are many opportunities to corrupt the objectivity of this process and product.
In the U.S., on March 7, 2019, Senator Schumer (together with Senators Carper, Reed, Van Hollen, Whitehouse, Markey, Schatz, Smith, Blumenthal, Shaheen, Booker, Stabenow, Klobuchar, Hassan, Merkley, and Feinstein) introduced Senate bill S.729.
Activists and Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs): If you believe there is a “climate emergency,” have built an organization on that premise, and rely upon you donors’ continuing commitment to the cause, projecting urgency is crucial. But these are also groups, with their own climate and energy agendas. For many, the “Climate Crisis” is their entire raison d’etre. And they are powerful political actors, who mobilize supporters, raise money, run campaigns, and wield political power.
The Public: As around the world, most citizens in America are not scientists, and the educational system does not deliver much in the way of scientific literacy to the wider public. Most people do not have the ability to examine the science themselves, and they have neither the time nor the inclination to do so. Many increasingly get their information from social media, where it is far too easy to promote misinformation or disinformation. And in my experience, people tend to believe – and trust – their chosen media in areas outside their expertise.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC): The IPCC’s “Summaries for Policymakers” are heavily influenced, if not written, by governments that have interests in promoting particular policies. There are many opportunities to corrupt the objectivity of this process and product.
In the U.S., on March 7, 2019, Senator Schumer (together with Senators Carper, Reed, Van Hollen, Whitehouse, Markey, Schatz, Smith, Blumenthal, Shaheen, Booker, Stabenow, Klobuchar, Hassan, Merkley, and Feinstein) introduced Senate bill S.729.
…to prohibit the use of funds to Federal agencies to establish a panel, task force, advisory committee, or other efforts to challenge the scientific consensus on climate change and for other purposes
Although the bill never went anywhere, I confess to being shocked – an “effort to challenge the scientific consensus” could easily include many climate science research studies and enshrining a certain scientific viewpoint as an inviolable consensus is hardly the role of government (at least in a democracy).
You might think it’s almost impossible for a non-expert to know what (or who) to believe when it comes to climate science. But even if you’re not willing or able to invest too much time in ferreting out the facts, it’s still pretty easy to watch for a few red flags that should trigger skepticism. Here’s what to look for.
Source: Unsettled by Steven E. Koonin (2021)
CONCLUSION
Climate change is real but it’s not the end of the world. It is not even our most serious environmental problem. Despite decades of news media attention, many remain ignorant of basic facts. Carbon emissions peaked and have been declining in most developed nations for more than a decade. Deaths from extreme weather, even in poor nations, declined 80% over the last four decades. And the risk of the Earth warming to very high temperatures is increasingly unlikely thanks to slowing population growth and abundant natural gas. Curiously, the people who are the most alarmist about the problems also tend to oppose the obvious solutions.
What’s really behind the rise of apocalyptic environmentalism? There are powerful financial interests. There are desires for status and power. But most of all there is a desire among supposedly secular people for transcendence. This spiritual impulse can be natural and healthy. But in preaching fear without love, and guilt without redemption, the new religion is failing to satisfy our deepest psychological and existential needs.
Source: Apocalypse Never by Michael Shellenberger (2020)
The unabbreviated version of the above can be found in the pdf document below.
You might think it’s almost impossible for a non-expert to know what (or who) to believe when it comes to climate science. But even if you’re not willing or able to invest too much time in ferreting out the facts, it’s still pretty easy to watch for a few red flags that should trigger skepticism. Here’s what to look for.
- Anyone referring to a scientist with the pejoratives “denier” or “alarmist” is engaging in politics or propaganda. And using the term “climate change” without distinguishing between natural and human causes signals (perhaps deliberate) sloppiness in thinking.
- Any appeal to the alleged “97% consensus” among scientists is another red flag. The study that produced that number has been debunked. And in any event, nobody has ever specified exactly what those 97% of scientists are supposed to be agreed upon. That the climate is changing? Sure, count me in! That humans are influencing the climate? Absolutely, I’m there! That we’re already seeing disastrous weather impacts and face an even more even more catastrophic future? Not at all obvious.
- Confusing weather and climate is another danger sign. One year’s bad weather does not make for a changing climate; climate is determined over decades.
- Omitting numbers is also a red flag. Hearing that “sea level is rising” sounds alarming, but much less so when you’re told it’s been going up at less than one foot per century for the past 150 years.
- Yet another common tactic is quoting alarming quantities without context. A headline that reads “Oceans are warming at the same rate as if five Hiroshima bombs were dropped in every second” does indeed sound scary, particularly as it invokes nuclear weapons.” But if you read further into the article, you learn that ocean temperatures are rising at only 0.04 degrees C per decade.
- Non-expert discussion of climate science also often confuses the climate that has been (observations) with the climate that could be (model projections under various scenarios). Watch out for the story that got onto the front page because it predicts a coming apocalypse “based on models.” And wording in press coverage such as “might be,” “could possibly be,” “as much as,” and “cannot be ruled out” are more signals of our ignorance than they are prophesies of doom. At the very least, worst and best cases should be presented, thought readers should be particularly wary of worst-case scenarios describes as “business as usual.”
Source: Unsettled by Steven E. Koonin (2021)
CONCLUSION
Climate change is real but it’s not the end of the world. It is not even our most serious environmental problem. Despite decades of news media attention, many remain ignorant of basic facts. Carbon emissions peaked and have been declining in most developed nations for more than a decade. Deaths from extreme weather, even in poor nations, declined 80% over the last four decades. And the risk of the Earth warming to very high temperatures is increasingly unlikely thanks to slowing population growth and abundant natural gas. Curiously, the people who are the most alarmist about the problems also tend to oppose the obvious solutions.
What’s really behind the rise of apocalyptic environmentalism? There are powerful financial interests. There are desires for status and power. But most of all there is a desire among supposedly secular people for transcendence. This spiritual impulse can be natural and healthy. But in preaching fear without love, and guilt without redemption, the new religion is failing to satisfy our deepest psychological and existential needs.
Source: Apocalypse Never by Michael Shellenberger (2020)
The unabbreviated version of the above can be found in the pdf document below.
| cc_e3l_the_influencers_--_epilogue_3.pdf |