I recently read a chapter from Stephen Schneider's "Science as a Contact Sport" for my Communicating Science class. While I was reading, I started to become annoyed at the bias that was painted all over the first half of the chapter. It was clear to me that Schneider disapproved of Conservative views and opinions, and he made a large effort to discredit those views. Fortunately, he began to let up on politics and make arguments about the flaws of the media and about effective science communication.
After reading the chapter, I watched a clip from Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth," of which I had only seen a little. I have to say that I was beginning to get tired of listening to one side of the story. I then watched a video of Glenn Beck to satisfy my desire for balance. It is true that I was getting some of each side, but those videos were probably not the best ones to watch to better understand global warming. They are epitomes of extreme reporting.
After it all, I am not sure which data to believe. I might have been able to glean some truth from the issue had I been exposed to a more moderate view on global warming. One that showed the many opinions on the matter and commented on the credibility of each view --- a concept that Schneider advocates in his work.
I found the investigation into global warming enlightening, but I am personally more interested in other topics. Laser physics, sports, and entertainment especially interest me. Concerning the global warming issue, the following compilation of video clips is one that I would prefer to watch.
There isn't a lot of truth in those clips, and all of them mock or belittle the serious issue, but I still get a kick out of them. Just realize that none of this should change your opinion on climate change. Look somewhere else for valuable information.
I like your montage (tho the soundtrack gets a bit annoying).
ReplyDeleteJust a few thoughts: I think one problem when it comes to global warming and politics is that seeking "balance" is problematic. Do you seek political balance when you're looking for information about laser physics? Probably not. Yet this issue has been terribly politicized. Al Gore's participation is perhaps part of that, but certainly not the only part. And still, there are standards for peer-reviewed literature in the climate sciences, just like anywhere else. I think Schneider was expressing his frustration that the science would be so politicized--and it was, particularly so, under the Bush administration. So I think that's where those potshots came from.
But this is controversial science (science at the frontier, and with high values stakes) and for scientists to resent politicization is probably naive. The question is where to go from here. How to involve someone like you, who is very smart, educated, responsible...yet who thinks the whole thing is a load of hogwash? For me, that's the interesting sci comm question now.
I don't think the whole thing is a load of hogwash, just the political part of it. I know there are many people out there using the issue of global warming for their own agendas. Scientists are fudging numbers for politicians. It's frustrating and I don't think there is a lot we can do about it. People will always try to use controversial science for their own benefit. It's for exactly that reason I am looking only at the humor produced about the topic and staying away from anything serious. It would be a bunch of effort to take it seriously, and to no avail, in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteSo, not to press you into something you're not into, but you might take a look at Fred Pearce's book "The Climate Files." It's a great read on climategate, and gives good information about what has been fudged and what hasn't. Just a thought.
ReplyDelete