Should climate scientists start firing back?

Global Warming: the fight begins (or does it?)

It’s no secret that with all the blows constantly raining down upon climate science and global warming by ignorance-fueled and ideologically-driven cranks, particularly with the “Climategate” pseudo-scandal and the reports on a litany of errors in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) reports (which were done by social scientists, who are not bound by the same fact-checking regulations as physical scientists), actual climate scientists are finding it harder and harder to try and conduct proper science when they always have to stop and defend their work from global warming denialists. Public dissent, already at an estimated 33% in late 2009, is steadily rising, which is certainly indicative that the dishonest tactics from the minority of anti-science reality-deniers are taking their toll.

Now, some scientists are beginning to consider fighting back in defense of their work and findings. It should be noted that this report comes from the MoonieWashington Times (which means take its highly conservative bias into account), which claims to have acquired a bunch of emails sent between frustrated climate scientists who are rallying up and planning to rise up against critics’ attacks.

Undaunted by a rash of scandals over the science underpinning climate change, top climate researchers are plotting to respond with what one scientist involved said needs to be "an outlandishly aggressively partisan approach" to gut the credibility of skeptics.

In private e-mails obtained by The Washington Times, climate scientists at the National Academy of Sciences say they are tired of "being treated like political pawns" and need to fight back in kind. Their strategy includes forming a nonprofit group to organize researchers and use their donations to challenge critics by running a back-page ad in the New York Times.

"Most of our colleagues don't seem to grasp that we're not in a gentlepersons' debate, we're in a street fight against well-funded, merciless enemies who play by entirely different rules," Paul R. Ehrlich, a Stanford University researcher, said in one of the e-mails.

Meanwhile, other scientists are decidedly less affable to the idea of hitting back:

In a phone interview, [Dr. Stephen H. Schneider, a professor at Stanford and fellow at the Woods Institute for the Environment] said he disagrees with trying to engage in an ad battle. He said the scientists will never be able to compete with energy companies.

"They're not going to win short-term battles playing the game against big-monied interests because they can't beat them," he said.

He said the "social contract" between scientists and policymakers is broken and must be reforged, and he urged colleagues to try to recruit members of Congress to take up their case. He also said the press and nongovernmental organizations must be prodded.

"What I am trying to do is head off something that will be truly ugly," he said. "I don't want to see a repeat of McCarthyesque behavior and I'm already personally very dismayed by the horrible state of this topic, in which the political debate has almost no resemblance to the scientific debate."

Not all climate scientists agree with forcing a political fight.

"Sounds like this group wants to step up the warfare, continue to circle the wagons, continue to appeal to their own authority, etc.," said Judith A. Curry, a climate scientist at the Georgia Institute of Technology. "Surprising, since these strategies haven't worked well for them at all so far."

She said scientists should downplay their catastrophic predictions, which she said are premature, and instead shore up and defend their research. She said scientists and institutions that have been pushing for policy changes "need to push the disconnect button for now," because it will be difficult to take action until public confidence in the science is restored.

This is a rather complex and decidedly interesting matter to think about. One the one hand, you have scientists who wish to hit back at their critics and show just how ignorant and dishonest they are, perhaps using the same tactics used on themselves; on the other side of the fence, we have those who think it would be unwise to engage in such hostilities and that scientists should just stick to their stuff, solidify their science and reach out to the public more.

It’s not clear just how reliable the quotes from the emails in the article are (especially considering which paper this is from). However, as good an idea it might be (or seem to be) to hit back at these denialists, to elevate (or descend) themselves to teh cranks’ level of using an “outlandishly aggressively^[sic] partisan approach” would be a bad idea, if not a catastrophic one. If the problem is that their critics are using false charges, smear campaigns and distortions to attack climate scientists’ credibility, attacking back “in kind” would explicitly mean using false charges, smear campaigns and distortions to try and “gut the credibility of skeptics”. Scientists need to hold themselves up to higher standards than that. They are the ones with evidence and reality at their side; adding dishonesty and lies is for their opponents to employ, not themselves.

Their critics are very good at politicizing everything, and this is exactly what scientists need to avoid doing. You don’t fight a liar with more lies; you staple the fucking truth on a note to their foreheads (figuratively speaking, of course) and let everyone else know that you are correct and they are plain wrong and lying about it. This is what scientists need to do: to reach out to the public and to lay their findings and research for all to see and examine, and to accept the veracity of. It’s a sad truth that scientists and organizations tend to be rather poor at science communication, even without critics and cranks muddying up the waters as they do so well. After all, it’s simple human nature: in too many cases, people (such as scientists) who specialize in cold hard logic, facts and research tend to come off as aloof, or plain distant, to most others. What they need are more middle-people to translate all that science into a language the general unwashed masses can comprehend without opening a dictionary. (Especially when most of them don’t seem to have one.)

At the same time, though, just laying down, sticking to their stuff and weathering the attacks won’t work. In less than six months, denialists’ attacks have already been shown to have eroded public confidence in climate science a significant amount (down 71% in August 2009 to 57% in October 2009, before the whole “Climategate” nonsense even took place), so obviously, their anti-science campaigns are working and need to be squelched. Building up a good defense isn’t sufficient to to this; they need to mount an offense as well – but focusing solely on sound science and better public relations, not using the same sullying tactics employed by their politicizing opponents. They need to be proven wrong in a calm and rational manner, not insulted (even though the latter is quite merited).

But, that’s just what I think, as an objective bystander looking on and examining all the pieces with logic and consideration. What do you think scientists should do? Should they start hitting back at their opponents and destroy their credibility and expose them as the true charlatans they are? Or should they just focus on fortifying their science and defending their work?

(via @todayspolitics)