Thursday, June 03, 2010

Reprise ...

... How climate scientists can repair their reputation.

I named this post "Reprise" because of this post of mine from last year: It isn't just us ... , from which I extract this:
... in many matters the mere appearance of impropriety can prove devastating. If there's really nothing there, it ought to very easy to clear up. As it is, the information is getting around, in whole and in part, leaving it open to all sorts of interpretation. If you act like you have something to hide, people are going to think you have something to hide. What I'm trying to get across is something a large segment of the scientific community doesn't seem to grasp - that it has a major public relations problem on its hands.
Looks to me as if I was right.

1 comment:

  1. Absolutely right. When Scientific American lashed out at Bjorn Lomborg's book years ago, I wondered what was up with climate science. After all, if there were factual problems with it, pointing them out should be enough to help dismiss it.

    Later, when I read through the book (note the word "through," it's very chart-heavy, I realized that he was not so much doubting the science but asking if it was worth the billions in treasure and economic damage to "fix" it, or if we should just learn to adapt. That's what set SA off.