OK, without any disrespect intended to Cox - even though I really can't stand his shows I think he's a decent guy - why is a particle physicist being rolled out to counter a climate change denier ? And with arguments like, "it's all a NASA conspiracy", the guy clearly is a denier, and it does massive disservice to true skeptics of all varieties to call him a "skeptic" in the headline. All good scientists are skeptics. None should resort to making up pure BS about conspiracy theories.
It's absurd to treat particle physicists and astrophysicists as though they're generic movie scientists able to understand every problem. This doesn't seem to happen when it comes to botanists or zoologists or geologists. When was the last time you saw an expert in elephant behaviour asked to comment on supernovae feedback ? You never did, so why are prominent astrophysicists asked to comment on climate change ?
OK, the two disciplines aren't that far removed from one another, I'm sure radiation transport is very important in both. Yet the specific knowledge is clearly very different. What do astrophysicists know about ocean convention and salinity and precipitation and the water cycle and the carbon cycle and tree-ring dating and methane hydrates ? Bugger all, that's what.
Now, Cox may well have said nothing but the absolute truth - I'm sure he's fact-checked things thoroughly. But I would infinitely prefer to have a climate scientist talking about climate science. First, there's always a much greater risk when talking about things outside one's specialist area. Insisting that astronomers understand the Earth's climate will lead to other media drawing on experts for advice on things they don't understand, and that's only going to increase the risk of silly mistakes. Second, the rarity of climatologists in the news undermines confidence in the discipline. So confidence in both astrophysicists and climatologists is weakened. Or worse, astrophysics is put on a false pedestal of authority.
I'm not saying that there isn't a place of science advocates. But relying on them as the media do is a terrible idea. The right approach is not to say, "well, he's not an expert in blah" whenever a mistake is made, but get an expert in blah to talk about blah in the first place.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-37091391
I suspect you do know the answer to your question - he's TV friendly. He knows which camera to talk to, he'll show up, he won't swear, he looks good onscreen, he pulls in audiences - all those things which are more important to producers than what's on his science CV.
ReplyDeleteAlso when you're dealing with that kind of idiot it barely matters if you roll out a particle physicist, geologist or ice-cream scientist.
He's there as a media scientist. While a genuine climate scientist may well have a deeper understanding of the facts, Cox is almost certainly going to be better at a television debate. As Gordon Brown inably demonstrated, it's possible to have the facts on your side and to know them inside out, and still lose debates hands-down.
ReplyDeleteIt wouldn't matter if this was an isolated incident, but climatologists seem to speak directly to the media far less frequently than astrophysicists. I refuse to believe they don't have a few charismatic, media-savvy individuals in their ranks.
ReplyDeleteFind a couple and you will know they do ;)
ReplyDeleteThere are not many scientists able to walk up in front of a camera and talk, even less are able (and trained) to do this and discuss with someone that is openly hostile to their area of expertise.
ReplyDeleteI think one reason astronomers etc. end up in front of the camera more is that they are presenting uncontroversial science. This, of course, gives a path to being comfortable in front of the camera - and known to the media - that enables them to take on more controversial stuff. I'm sure there are charismatic climatologists out there - but I couldn't actually name one.
ReplyDeleteI can't help feeling that it's very much easier to distrust a group of people if you never even see them. Even if other trustworthy people speak on your behalf, why would you believe anything that it's claimed 97% of a group of people believe ? At some point you need to hear them speak directly. Doesn't have to be in this particular debate - I'd agree that a real expert might not help with arguing against a real loony - but... this is the second time today I've seen a astrophysicist held as having significant knowledge of climate change (the first was this : https://plus.google.com/u/0/+ThorsenVreeland/posts/XKX1LbmNct6). Now, I know this isn't intentional, but it looks an awful lot like argument from authority to me. The only way to counter that is to give the climatologists a direct voice, show people that they're not some faceless statistic but real people who care just as much about the world as everyone else does.
ReplyDeleteJames Carville, the American political operator, says when you become famous, being famous becomes your profession. It's a fair cop: earnest cutie and television darling Brian Cox isn't a climatologist. But that's okay. He's famous. And he has an OBE and an FRS after his name, along with DPhil. The ABC Q&A people want ratings and some nebbish with only a PhD after his name wouldn't be as big a draw as Cutie Cox. OBE. FRS. And so cute.
ReplyDeleteBut even a baboon could present the case for global warming - and Dr. Cox did bring a graph.
You don't have to be a climatologist, a physics student would grasp the fundamentals.
ReplyDeleteAnyone who accuses scientists, or a scientific organization of lying, has no understanding of the scientific method. A belief that it is even possible for a scientist to lie and decive the rest of the community betrays a lack of understanding.
The only ones who would buy into that are the people who are scientifically illiterate...
Those who don't understand the carbon cycle. It doesn't take much cognitive capacity to grasp that the gigatons of ancient carbon we mine and dump into the atmosphere will have a measurable affect.
The other thing is that by framing that as a debate, implies there is a possibility that our influence on climate is questionable. It's not.
Being scientifically illiterate should bar any individual from running for office that legislates. Barring that, representatives should be required to wear uniforms, you know, like NASCAR drivers - so we could see who their sponsors are...
David Andrews ... when I'm discussing climate change with disbelievers - me, the software guy - I say "Y'know what, you're right. We don't fully understand the outcomes and consequences of changing the gas fractions of our atmosphere. Heretofore, the lakes and oceans have been absorbing a substantial fraction of our CO2 output, that's why we haven't seen most of the consequences.
ReplyDelete"But there's a limit to that, as well. All those shellfish and the corals, you know, the creatures which created all the limestone? When the pH of the ocean reaches a certain limit, they won't be able to create shells for themselves. It's already happening. Up here in Wisconsin, every spring, you'll see trucks full of crushed limestone, headed out to the lakes, so the freshwater fish the tourists like to catch can thrive.
"But you're oh so right. We don't know what the outcome of global warming will be. Once we've disturbed the carbon cycle sufficiently, all bets are off. There won't be any little jagged lines on the graph for you to quibble about. It's only a question of how bad it will be... and [wiggle fingers menacingly] that's what I'm worried about. Because the planet will cope with that crash just fine. Our species - and all the shellfish - will not survive in any form. Already the coral's dying off. The oysters need sodium carbonate to even start up anymore. Get ready to eat a lot of jellyfish."
I need to like this post more than once, please.
ReplyDeleteI really don't care for celebrity scientist culture. Brian Cox is a pretty awesome person, I think, but let's face it -- they bring him in, along with Tyson, Nye, etc. because they're celebrities. There are no celebrity climatologists.
Sigh.
Dan Weese Manny even deny any influence. And yes, the ocean as a heatsink masks a lot. Thing is the energy deposited there will influence climate for many centuries because of the currents distribution to all depths, and the deep currents take that long to make a circuit.
ReplyDeleteTotally agree, and it's an issue with science representation in media across the board. The idea that astrophysicist is the go-to expert for climate science, or talk to the cosmologist about evolution, etc etc. Media represents all science as if it's just one field of study.
ReplyDeleteThe only reason biologists et al aren't suckered into it as much, is most people think they know roughly what a biologist does. The moment they insist on being geneticists or something else that doesn't sound like some dude collecting specimens, I imagine the effect disappears.
And, can I take a moment to apologize for the absurdly idiotic example of how the Australian voting system can go horribly wrong. 77 votes.
I personally respect Brian Cox and his works at CERN. Denying climate change is not the way to go. This issue is becoming unbearable to a point you don't know who to trust.
ReplyDeleteI've been in the audience for Q&A a few times, and it's pretty fun in general. Generally they try to get parliamentarian from each of the major parties, and then the other guests are decided by who is available and likely to be interesting. Here's how the episode was pitched to the potential studio audience:
ReplyDelete_This week, we look at innovation, science and detention. Joining us on the panel in our Sydney studio:
Greg Hunt , Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science
Linda Burney , Shadow Minister for Human Services
Brian Cox , Particle Physicist and broadcaster
Lily Serna , Mathematician
Malcolm Roberts , One Nation Senator, Queensland_
Brian Cox wasn't there to debate climate science, he was called up because it's Science Week and he's touring Australia making lots of money doing public talks.
Clearly he knew the question would be asked and that someone had to smack down that pompous piece of shit (One Nation being the Australian equivalent to UKIP), but generally Q&A does a surprisingly good job of including a wide range of science and non-science professionals on the panels. The last time I was there they had a marine biologist and an architect on the panel, for instance.
Sadly the climate change 'question' is something all scientists / science advocates need to be prepped to answer if they want to deal with the public at the moment. I used to get it at the observatory about once in every four shifts. In Australia, where the GBReef is dying, our droughts are getting longer and the native wildlife is dying because they can't cope with the record heat.
If we must make celebrities out of scientists* - and maybe that's not such a bad thing - at least make celebrities out of scientists of all fields. Astronomers should not have to do the public outreach of climatologists - get the climatologists to do that ! Imagine if the situation was reversed and the only TV presentations about astronomy were done by climatologists. True, you could easily get a climatologist to argue with a Flat Earther, which seems to be the equivalent of the above debate. But nobody would think it a sensible idea for astronomy presentations to be given exclusively by climatologists - which is not so far off the current overall situation, IMHO.
ReplyDelete* Incidentally Brian Cox was already something of a minor celebrity through pop music.