5 ms·

I predict that this will be the new primary source of propaganda undermining public belief in climate science.

by kevmo 9y ago

TearsInTheRain 9y ago
If it is done by experts in good faith this will probably be a good thing to strengthen the signal/noise ratio in climate science.
- GVIrish 9y ago
  Except all of Scott Pruitt's actions to date indicate that it is not being done in good faith.
- klipt 9y ago
  Pruitt is bought by the fossil fuel industry: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/02/22/oklahoma-attorney-generals-office-releases-7500-pages-of-emails-between-scott-pruitt-and-fossil-fuel-industry/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/20...
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > If it is done by experts in good faith this will probably be a good thing to strengthen the signal/noise ratio in climate science. “Aye, and”—to quote Scotty—“if my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a wagon.” It's not like Pruitt and his boss haven't already staked out a definitive position on climate science, or like Pruitt would structure (or his boss would tolerate him structuring) this in any way not assured to support that position.
- Avshalom 9y ago
  It will not. We've already done this http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-... It didn't help.
  - rndmize 9y ago
    Yep. I remember conservatives crowing about how this was a study by a climate skeptic and respected scientist and they'd be willing to accept the results. Of course, when the results weren't what they wanted, They turned against the whole thing. Brings to mind Gingrich and his "Mueller is an excellent pick" tweet a few months ago, only to completely flip his position a few weeks ago. These people are unredeemable.
TomSawyer 9y ago
Since when does science require public belief to sustain itself?
- mac01021 9y ago
  Science does not. The institution of public policy based on the results of that science might.
  - Spivak 9y ago
    Which is exactly what should be happening! Imagine that the situation was reversed and that the scientific community at large concluded that humans weren't the cause of climate change. Wouldn't you like it if public policy changed after this group published their findings?
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  Since public belief drives public policy, which is a substantial factor in science funding, and, ultimately, can also impose limits on performing or publishing research, either explicitly or indirectly by imposing penalties for publishing material damaging to industry.

I predict that this will be the new primary source of propaganda undermining public belief in climate science.

by kevmo 9y ago

I predict that this will be the new primary source of propaganda undermining public belief in climate science.

If it is done by experts in good faith this will probably be a good thing to strengthen the signal/noise ratio in climate science.

GVIrish 9y ago
Except all of Scott Pruitt's actions to date indicate that it is not being done in good faith.
klipt 9y ago
Pruitt is bought by the fossil fuel industry: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/02/22/oklahoma-attorney-generals-office-releases-7500-pages-of-emails-between-scott-pruitt-and-fossil-fuel-industry/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/20...
dragonwriter 9y ago
> If it is done by experts in good faith this will probably be a good thing to strengthen the signal/noise ratio in climate science. “Aye, and”—to quote Scotty—“if my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a wagon.” It's not like Pruitt and his boss haven't already staked out a definitive position on climate science, or like Pruitt would structure (or his boss would tolerate him structuring) this in any way not assured to support that position.
Avshalom 9y ago
It will not. We've already done this http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-... It didn't help.
- rndmize 9y ago
  Yep. I remember conservatives crowing about how this was a study by a climate skeptic and respected scientist and they'd be willing to accept the results. Of course, when the results weren't what they wanted, They turned against the whole thing. Brings to mind Gingrich and his "Mueller is an excellent pick" tweet a few months ago, only to completely flip his position a few weeks ago. These people are unredeemable.

TomSawyer 9y ago

Since when does science require public belief to sustain itself?

mac01021 9y ago
Science does not. The institution of public policy based on the results of that science might.
- Spivak 9y ago
  Which is exactly what should be happening! Imagine that the situation was reversed and that the scientific community at large concluded that humans weren't the cause of climate change. Wouldn't you like it if public policy changed after this group published their findings?
dragonwriter 9y ago
Since public belief drives public policy, which is a substantial factor in science funding, and, ultimately, can also impose limits on performing or publishing research, either explicitly or indirectly by imposing penalties for publishing material damaging to industry.