A group of scientists have published a series of articles about errors and inconsistencies in Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth [Scientists debate the accuracy of Al Gore's documentary 'An Inconvenient Truth'].
There is no question that Al Gore’s 2006 documentary An Inconvenient Truth is a powerful example of how scientific knowledge can be communicated to a lay audience. What is up for debate is whether it accurately presents the scientific argument that global warming is caused by human activities. Climate change experts express their opinions on the scientific validity of the film’s claims in articles just published online in Springer’s journal, GeoJournal.I guess they didn't get the message from Mooney and Nisbet. You see, when you develop a spin on climate change every scientist is supposed to stick to the script. You can't have freelancers running off and criticizing the frame.
This is exactly the problem with the concept of framing. Nisbet and Mooney just don't get it. There will always be scientists who disagree with the message being framed and it just not possible to shut them up. That's the exact opposite of what science is all about.
5 comments :
Larry, I'm not really sure what you are going on about here. In the article you link to, most of the scientists mentioned think that Al Gore's documentary is basically accurate, and only one thinks that it isn't (Roy Spencer doesn't count becuase he is a crank who is a global warming denialist and supporter of Intelligent Design, please see here and here, and also here. Most climate scientists think that Gore's movie is accurate (see here and here), so, again, I don't know what you are going on about.
In a previous post about Al Gore, you mentioned that "[m]ost scientists know that some of the 'facts' are only half-truths and some of them are still disputed within the scientific community." What "facts" are you talking about? I also thought what you said in the post was contradicted by your comment here.
I suppose it is not possible to get every scientist to agree on every little detail of global warming, but I think there is agreement on the big picture, which Al Gore lays out in his movie. Plus, it is persuasive and doesn't put people to sleep (sounds like he did a pretty good job of framing!).
Science evolves in the spirit of free exchange of ideias, and new ways to interpretate the evidence. Global warming alarmists, and darwinian totalists are a hindrance to science.
Global warming may be true, but scientists who have conflicting views must not be silenced.
The same goes with the question of origins. Darwinism is the game most scientists accept, but it is not the game ALL scientists accept. People with diferent views should not be ruled out philosophicaly just because this or that theory damages someone's worldview (atheism).
If you don't like where the evidence leads you to(or to WHO the evidence leads you to), then it's time to change your worldview.
I can sugest one for you, if you like.
Mats
I saw the recently reworked Powerpoint presentation of Gore's organization (for lack of a better word). The issue is how to treat recent results that are tentative (such as hurricane intensity relationships to global warming). There is no question that Gore's stand on them was to err on the side of caution (alarmism others would call it). A Bayesian approach would assign a roughly 50% chance the new results are right, and then we can make decisions based on the cost of action vs. the cost of inaction.
The majority of Gore's slide show was about well established facts, so not in question.
Mats: I must quibble with your definition of science. I don't think it's accurate to say that evidence is interpreted in new ways. Evidence is evaluated against specific hypothesises, either supporting or falsifying the hypothesis. It's not a matter or reinterpreting things to make them fit different conclusions.
May I also ask what exactly is a "darwinian totalist"? I don't see the connection to science. Evolutionary scientists recognize that there is much more than Darwinian mechanisms to evolution. "Darwinism" is NOT something that most scientists accept, it's a scientifically meaningless term.
Finally, scientific theories don't have anything to do with the personal philosophies of individuals, as you seem to be suggesting. Theories are based on evidence, observation, logical inference and consistency with the real world, not on personal philosophies, worldviews, theology or atheism. Individuals who have ideas that are different from the accepted theory must provide sufficient evidence for their claims. Their ideas WILL be ruled out until they are shown to be well supported by evidence and consistent with the observable world.
I will agree that dissenting voices must not be silenced, but they must also not be treated as equivalent to well supported ones. The burden of proof is on the dissenters, no one is obliged to believe their conclusions simply out of 'fairness'.
Ah, but framing is quite necessary for most people. You may have depth in biochemistry and evolution, but if you were suddenly interested in the physics of the large hadron collider and someone told you to go read a bunch of physics papers or talk to a bunch of highly technical nerds, I guarantee you wouldn't understand much of it in a meaningful way. It's someone elses job to digest all that and present it to you in form that you can grasp, without spending to much time on it.
Post a Comment