3 ms·
> something like the oceans should have started cooling down a month ago but they haven't. I don't disagree with your overall point, that science communication
by ChainOfFools 3y ago
> something like the oceans should have started cooling down a month ago but they haven't.
I don't disagree with your overall point, that science communication is frustrated by stubborn impedance mismatches between authors and the different audiences they're trying to reach.
However I would point out that if the article were written according to the example that you have just given, within minutes some crank would go find the original paper, skim the abstract and locate the actual 2/10 degree fact.
They would then blast social media with hot takes about how climate hoax scientists have once again spun a "nothingburger" story into a panic by deliberately concealing the "troof"
- nunuvit 3y agoI'm not really concerned about that. You're right that propagandists will always find a way to exploit whatever you say or don't say, no matter how you say it. It's a fool's errand to try to manipulate the discourse through self-censorship, which is why I don't advocate for it. I'd have been perfectly satisfied if the temperature statistic was quoted in the very next sentence after the one I suggested. I did say "lead with", but it's kind of buried. My only point was that science advocates need to modernize their persuasive argument repertoire.