New Climate Science Update: Latest Findings Since 2006 Report

[mheslep]

Well it wouldn't be immediately effective, but useless is a bit strong.

You're right.

 

[Bored Wombat]

You're right.

On the other hand, you'd never get the US or probably Australia to accept enforced reductions if China and probably India weren't given reductions, so I guess my pedanticism is moot for practical purposes.

 

[sophiecentaur]

Xnn
You have compared climate variations with the Stock Market.
One big difference is that betting on the Stock Market affects it in the short term. These days, everyone with red braces has been using the same computer program to spot trends and they've all been involved in a huge positive feedback system. This is a very unstable system.
There has been (until now, possibly) no feedback mechanism involving human behaviour.

I feel very despondent about the latest public and press reactions to UEA's emails. People just don't want to think that we have any responsibility or any chance of changing things. How convenient that some numpty over egged things a bit and that means all the evidence must be wrong.(!?) Whatever turns out to be the 'truth', it is far too much to expect the Public to understand anything so complicated and to make the optimum decision about what to do. Same goes for the politicians, too.

 

[chayced]

This graph also illustrates, BTW, why CO2 emissions reductions enforced on only the EU and the US while allowing China and India to opt out would be useless.

Not true at all. If emmision reductions were inforced on the US it would cause more financial trouble.

It's already nearly impossible to compete with Chinese manufacturing because of standard of living/labor costs, nonexistant quality control, and disregard for environmental standards.

If the west is left pennyless by its own enforced handycap, who will get china to clean up their act?

If it were truly useless I wouldn't care about it. This is counterproductive.

 

[Xezlec]

Vanesch, et al.:

I would genuinely love to be on your side and not worry about the whole climate change thing, but there are some questions I would need to find convincing answers to first. This list is not meant as a critique; I honestly wonder what the right thing to do is, and am open to persuasion.

1. I keep hearing this notion everywhere that the one right course of action is adaptation to global warming rather than any reduction in fossil fuel consumption. I've been trying to understand it. Don't forever-increasing CO2 emissions most likely mean forever-increasing temperature? How can we adapt to a forever-increasing temperature? Is that even possible?

2. I know that so far, industrialized nations have failed to reduce emissions significantly, and (though I'm not well-versed enough to actually know) I could certainly be persuaded that significant reductions could be an enormous economic strain, maybe even sufficient to set our standard of living back 100 years or more. But when I envision massive shifts of climate and productivity from one region to another, and the inevitable conflicts over resources that come along with it, plus possible mass extinctions due to such a rapid climate shift being too much for most species to adapt to, and unknown wider effects due to that (don't "pest" species tend to be favored by rapid changes in environment?), I guess I don't see why it would necessarily be obvious that the possible-but-debatable economic armageddon wrought by switching to alternative energy rivals the possible-but-debatable environmental armageddon that could result (even with some adaptation) from not doing so. In the context of that kind of uncertainty, what makes you confident in favoring the option you favor?

3. Do you believe that "advertising" a position to the public is wrong? That science should just state the facts and leave the decision-making to the decision-makers? If so, then is it OK for science to at least "advertise" those facts, so long as they aren't advocating a course of action? I mean, for example, is it OK to try to persuade people that the theory of evolution is plausible, as long as you don't explicitly advocate a position regarding teaching it in schools?

History would seem to show that the public (and, to a lesser extent, leaders) are not going to carefully and scientifically analyze a scientific position. Rather, they give science relatively little weight in deciding their beliefs and courses of action. I submit that people believe what is sold to them, and when two people are trying to sell them competing ideas, then being right just gives one of them a slight statistical advantage in persuasiveness. If that's the case, then isn't science without a hard-sell incapable of reaching the public or decision-makers at all?

The upshot of that is, if (as I suggest) it is OK to use persuasion in favor of a position regarding a statement of fact, then wouldn't the potential statement of fact "course of action A results in a more tolerable (by some metric) situation than course of action B" also be OK to use persuasion for? Sorry if that's convoluted, but it's the best way I can explain what I keep thinking when I hear this position.

 

[sylas]

1. I keep hearing this notion everywhere that the one right course of action is adaptation to global warming rather than any reduction in fossil fuel consumption. I've been trying to understand it. Don't forever-increasing CO2 emissions most likely mean forever-increasing temperature? How can we adapt to a forever-increasing temperature? Is that even possible?

There's a hard limit on CO₂ emissions, and that is the availability of fuels. Oil in particular has a limited availability; it is becoming more and more expensive to obtain, in every sense. Conventional reserves are running out, and proposals such as mining shales or extracting from other such sources are much more expensive and have serious negative consequences quite apart from emissions.

One way or the other, we are going to be weaned off cheap oil. The question is; what path will we take for moving to new technologies? We'll be doing that anyway.

If we adapt industry to use other sources of fossil fuels and manage to get all of it mined or extracted; with all available fossil carbon burned and emitted out into the atmosphere, there is still a hard limit on how far we could realistically go. That's probably the easiest line of least resistance. Climate impacts would be significant, but bounded; and adapting to that would be expensive.

If we adapt to other technologies, then we may be able to get away with not burning all available fossil fuels. I'm a bit of a skeptic with respect to human collective sanity and risk management; but I am reasonably sure that the cheapest and and most practical long term strategy will involve leaving large reservoirs of fossil fuels in the ground (coal, especially) and moving to other technologies... which we'll have to do in any case.

Cheers -- sylas

 

[Xezlec]

There's a hard limit on CO₂ emissions, and that is the availability of fuels.

Ah, so that's what that's all about.

But still, whenever a scientist says "bounded", I immediately think http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham%27s_number" (which was invented precisely to provide an upper bound for something). In the interest of specifying a useful bound, is there good reason to believe that those fuels will peter out, say, within the next thousand years? I mean, sure, the current oil sources may be running out, but isn't there still a "fecal tonne" of coal and natural gas out there? And maybe some as-yet-undiscovered stuff that will become increasingly cost-effective in years to come? I mean like those methane clathrates I've heard so much about?

 

[Bored Wombat]

Vanesch, et al.:

I would genuinely love to be on your side and not worry about the whole climate change thing, but there are some questions I would need to find convincing answers to first. This list is not meant as a critique; I honestly wonder what the right thing to do is, and am open to persuasion. (etc)

Good questions.

 

[vanesch]

Vanesch, et al.:

I would genuinely love to be on your side and not worry about the whole climate change thing, but there are some questions I would need to find convincing answers to first. This list is not meant as a critique; I honestly wonder what the right thing to do is, and am open to persuasion.

I'm not saying that we "shouldn't worry". I'm just saying that it is my opinion that scientists do a disservice to science by trying to present their results in a way which is "non-neutral", as I pointed out to this brochure, which tries to emphasize, by using communication techniques, the gravity of climate change.

If people, and politicians, need to take decisions, they need "information" and not "communication". There's no point in using communication techniques that try to convey a message of "melting Greenland" faster than it actually melts. There's no point in representing it as melting less than it actually does as one can find on some sceptics blogs either. The message should simply be: to the best of our knowledge, Greenland will be ice-free by (say) 2070, or 2140, or...

It is then up to politicians and people to determine whether or not that's a sufficiently serious problem to do something about. It's not up to the scientist to go shouting "hell, people, look, Greenland's melting FAST" (suggesting: DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT, DAMNIT!).

Not that scientists are not human beings and may not have political convictions - the reason is that if they do so, they put themselves on the same level as opponents of science, and hence they lose their credibility as a scientist.

1. I keep hearing this notion everywhere that the one right course of action is adaptation to global warming rather than any reduction in fossil fuel consumption. I've been trying to understand it. Don't forever-increasing CO2 emissions most likely mean forever-increasing temperature? How can we adapt to a forever-increasing temperature? Is that even possible?

As others said, we'll run out of fossil fuels in any case about this century or the next, and when we have done that, we will have - if I remember well - put a 4-fold amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, and there this story will stop in any case.

2. I know that so far, industrialized nations have failed to reduce emissions significantly, and (though I'm not well-versed enough to actually know) I could certainly be persuaded that significant reductions could be an enormous economic strain, maybe even sufficient to set our standard of living back 100 years or more. But when I envision massive shifts of climate and productivity from one region to another, and the inevitable conflicts over resources that come along with it, plus possible mass extinctions due to such a rapid climate shift being too much for most species to adapt to, and unknown wider effects due to that (don't "pest" species tend to be favored by rapid changes in environment?), I guess I don't see why it would necessarily be obvious that the possible-but-debatable economic armageddon wrought by switching to alternative energy rivals the possible-but-debatable environmental armageddon that could result (even with some adaptation) from not doing so. In the context of that kind of uncertainty, what makes you confident in favoring the option you favor?

Well, we should first know with much more detail what ARE going to be the exact consequences, because global temperature itself is not a very detailed indicator. If it is just because of some species extinctions and coral reefs, I think most people are not willing to set back their lifestyle for about 100 years - especially not in develloping countries. Even if half of humanity has to die, we would like to find out WHICH half, and if we are not concerned, I don't think we are willing to set back our life style 100 years to save the OTHER half of humanity. And again, all these are political decisions and viewpoints, they have nothing to do with the science.

Science should try to find out, to the best of their ability. Science should inform. Science shouldn't take any political position, because then science looses her virginity.

3. Do you believe that "advertising" a position to the public is wrong? That science should just state the facts and leave the decision-making to the decision-makers? If so, then is it OK for science to at least "advertise" those facts, so long as they aren't advocating a course of action?

They should advertize the facts, only the facts, and the whole facts, and not represent them in a biased way towards a certain kind of action-taking. What has been done here is to try to emphasize beyond objectivity, the "graveness" of climate change (and hence the need of action). This is a problem because the real question to politicians is not "should we stop this", but rather "what balance between limiting this, and adapting to the consequences, is best fit (for my country) ?"

For that you need as objective a description of what is going to happen and not.

History would seem to show that the public (and, to a lesser extent, leaders) are not going to carefully and scientifically analyze a scientific position. Rather, they give science relatively little weight in deciding their beliefs and courses of action. I submit that people believe what is sold to them, and when two people are trying to sell them competing ideas, then being right just gives one of them a slight statistical advantage in persuasiveness. If that's the case, then isn't science without a hard-sell incapable of reaching the public or decision-makers at all?

They shouldn't care about that. That's the whole point ! They should just try to find out how things work, and what's going to happen. Not whether anybody cares, or what action one should take.

The upshot of that is, if (as I suggest) it is OK to use persuasion in favor of a position regarding a statement of fact, then wouldn't the potential statement of fact "course of action A results in a more tolerable (by some metric) situation than course of action B" also be OK to use persuasion for? Sorry if that's convoluted, but it's the best way I can explain what I keep thinking when I hear this position.

The problem is that if you, as a scientist, try to persuade the public that the problem you're dealing with is terrible (much more terrible than the actual data show you), then chances are that you induce people in wrong decision making, by giving too much weight to what you are saying, for the moment. And if later on, it turns out that you've been exaggerating, even the slightest bit, that NOBODY WILL TAKE YOU SERIOUSLY ANYMORE, even if this time, you come with a genuinely serious problem, because you've been crying wolf before. And if science is not to be trusted, then who is ? Any crank that comes up with any idea ?

In other words, by "putting (more than your actual) weight into the balance as a scientist", you are risking the whole credibility of science in the future.

 

[Bored Wombat]

I'm not saying that we "shouldn't worry". I'm just saying that it is my opinion that scientists do a disservice to science by trying to present their results in a way which is "non-neutral", as I pointed out to this brochure, which tries to emphasize, by using communication techniques, the gravity of climate change.

If people, and politicians, need to take decisions, they need "information" and not "communication". There's no point in using communication techniques that try to convey a message of "melting Greenland" faster than it actually melts. There's no point in representing it as melting less than it actually does as one can find on some sceptics blogs either. The message should simply be: to the best of our knowledge, Greenland will be ice-free by (say) 2070, or 2140, or...

It is then up to politicians and people to determine whether or not that's a sufficiently serious problem to do something about. It's not up to the scientist to go shouting "hell, people, look, Greenland's melting FAST" (suggesting: DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT, DAMNIT!).

Not that scientists are not human beings and may not have political convictions - the reason is that if they do so, they put themselves on the same level as opponents of science, and hence they lose their credibility as a scientist.

I disagree with that.

I think the communication of science is science to the public is a different job than communicating it in the scientific literature, and is not less valuable.

For the former, you need to use common and often emotive language. For the latter you need to use equations.

The problem is that if you, as a scientist, try to persuade the public that the problem you're dealing with is terrible (much more terrible than the actual data show you), then chances are that you induce people in wrong decision making, by giving too much weight to what you are saying, for the moment. And if later on, it turns out that you've been exaggerating, even the slightest bit, that NOBODY WILL TAKE YOU SERIOUSLY ANYMORE, even if this time, you come with a genuinely serious problem, because you've been crying wolf before. And if science is not to be trusted, then who is ? Any crank that comes up with any idea ?

In other words, by "putting (more than your actual) weight into the balance as a scientist", you are risking the whole credibility of science in the future.

I don't think anyone is saying that the problem is worse than the data shows. (And if they are I agree that this is ethically as well as morally wrong). But given that about 97% of research climatologists think that human activity is affecting climate and only about 80% of the public, then there is an information gap that should be addressed.

(And a propaganda machine producing the information gap, that should also be addressed).

 

[vanesch]

I disagree with that.

I think the communication of science is science to the public is a different job than communicating it in the scientific literature, and is not less valuable.

For the former, you need to use common and often emotive language. For the latter you need to use equations.

I'm horrified by that thought. It is science denying its fundamental principles.

I don't think anyone is saying that the problem is worse than the data shows.

Then why does the inset of the ice melting on Greenland show the smallest and the largest outliers of the general trend instead of picking two images that lie close to the trend line ?

But given that about 97% of research climatologists think that human activity is affecting climate and only about 80% of the public, then there is an information gap that should be addressed.

But do you think the best way to get people accept a scientific viewpoint is by exaggerating the message ?

Imagine I wanted to promote the scientific idea that humans evolved from ape-like ancestors who didn't walk straight up. Would it be productive to convince those that have a hard time accepting that by exaggerating the message, and by showing pictures that suggest that humans actually evolved from apes that walked on their hands only, and slide in images of some chimp walking on his hands with his legs in the air ?

Do you think that renders the science more credible ?

 

[Bored Wombat]

I'm horrified by that thought. It is science denying its fundamental principles.

Not unless you think that science isn't the publicisation of science too. Climate science is the prime example where the public's general ignorance of science is becoming dangerous.

But scientists are (almost) always emotional about the object of their studies. It's fine for that to come out in the publicisation of it. That way it's less boring. And who among us (except perhaps the aspies) was not moved by Sagan or Feynman?

That's what it's all about, and it isn't against fundamental principles.

Then why does the inset of the ice melting on Greenland show the smallest and the largest outliers of the general trend instead of picking two images that lie close to the trend line ?

To show the range. As long as it is clear what the inset shows, it's good.

But do you think the best way to get people accept a scientific viewpoint is by exaggerating the message ?

No. But if a scientist is concerned. (And about two thirds of the ecologists one speaks to can talk of devastation in their object of study), then they should say: "I'm concerned". And if they think that 75% of all ecological communities are under immediate threat of population extinction they should say: "You should be concerned!"

Loudly.

Imagine I wanted to promote the scientific idea that humans evolved from ape-like ancestors who didn't walk straight up. Would it be productive to convince those that have a hard time accepting that by exaggerating the message, and by showing pictures that suggest that humans actually evolved from apes that walked on their hands only, and slide in images of some chimp walking on his hands with his legs in the air ?

No. But argument by analogy is like a leaky screwdriver.

Do you think that renders the science more credible ?

No. But no one is leading climate science with photos of a chimp walking on their hands. And if they did, it wouldn't say anything about climate science.

 

[vanesch]

Not unless you think that science isn't the publicisation of science too. Climate science is the prime example where the public's general ignorance of science is becoming dangerous.

I don't know if it is especially dangerous in this case, but for sure (and that's my point) scientists have a big responsibility in rendering the science less credible.

But scientists are (almost) always emotional about the object of their studies. It's fine for that to come out in the publicisation of it. That way it's less boring. And who among us (except perhaps the aspies) was not moved by Sagan or Feynman?

There's a difference between showing emotion about the beauty of a study object, and trying to convey interest in the study material at hand, or, by trying to promote the scientific method and approach and lauding its principles as a way to "find out things" on one hand, and by using emotional arguments in a communication technique mixed with scientific ones to promote a political stance, in the same way as a vulgar commercial does.

To show the range. As long as it is clear what the inset shows, it's good.

What range ? The range of "natural variability" ? It is NOT clear what the inset shows: you have to look at the years, and then SEE that these points are outliers. There is no caveat in the legend: "the insets show two extreme outliers to illustrate how variable (how noisy) this indicator is".

No. But if a scientist is concerned. (And about two thirds of the ecologists one speaks to can talk of devastation in their object of study), then they should say: "I'm concerned". And if they think that 75% of all ecological communities are under immediate threat of population extinction they should say: "You should be concerned!"

Why ? What if I don't care what happens to 75% of all ecological communities ? What's so "scientific" about it ? What is important is that people are *informed* (in as much as they care) about that. What is also important is that one explains to them what it implies for their day-to-day life. If the Amazon forest disappears, how will that affect my day-to-day life ? Will I not be able to eat Kiwis any more, and do I find it important to be able to eat kiwis ? Will it affect the way I go to my work place ? The way I go on a holiday ?

No. But no one is leading climate science with photos of a chimp walking on their hands. And if they did, it wouldn't say anything about climate science.

The chimp walking on its hands is the equivalent of the insets of the Greenland ice plot: it is a suggestive picture of a larger effect than has been observed.
The picture can be a true picture of a circus chimp that has learned to walk on its hands, so it is not "wrong". But it suggests something that is not correct.

 

[Bored Wombat]

I don't know if it is especially dangerous in this case, but for sure (and that's my point) scientists have a big responsibility in rendering the science less credible.

It's a PR game, and they're up against PR experts.

I don't know if you can blame them.

Why ? What if I don't care what happens to 75% of all ecological communities ?

Then you need to be educated about the science. Because we're losing forever a massively powerful resource, and you should understand that if you're going to take up good space on the planet.

What's so "scientific" about it ? What is important is that people are *informed* (in as much as they care) about that.

Because humans are superstitious and believe wrong things. And yet we supply them with a technological society, full of technology they don't understand. And the mix of power and ignorance is dangerous.

Science is a candle of light in an increasingly demon-haunted darkness in people's minds, and that alone is unstable:

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2319603620080423"

If we let it slip far enough, we could very easily get a new inquisition era or even dark ages.

"I worry that [...] pseudo-science and superstition will seem year by year more tempting, the siren song of unreason more sonorous and attractive. Where have we heard it before? Whenever our ethnic or national prejudices are aroused, in times of scarcity, during challenges to national self-esteem or nerve, when we agonize about our diminished cosmic place and purpose, or when fanaticism is bubbling up around us-then, habits of thought familiar from ages past reach for the controls. The candle flame gutters. Its little pool of light trembles. Darkness gathers. The demons begin to stir." - Carl Sagan (The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark).

If people don't understand science, and don't understand that we need to preserve biodiversity, they can do great damage to themselves, to us and to the world.

What is also important is that one explains to them what it implies for their day-to-day life. If the Amazon forest disappears, how will that affect my day-to-day life ?

It will retard forever your capacity for many avenues of medical research and biochemical research. And it may destroy keystone nutritional biological processes that kicks of other extinctions. Possibly our own.

Will I not be able to eat Kiwis any more, and do I find it important to be able to eat kiwis ?

No, but if we lose key species, perhaps obviously honey bees, it will make getting enough of certain vitamins difficult and expensive. And most will not be as obvious as honey bees. They will be lower on the food chain and camouflaged in out ignorance of ecological systems.

Will it affect the way I go to my work place ?

Possibly. Especially if your route to your work is within a few metres of the high tide mark at any point.

The way I go on a holiday ?

Certainly. It will mean there will be food riots and unrest in many parts of the world, so you'll have to take a gun or avoid them.

The chimp walking on its hands is the equivalent of the insets of the Greenland ice plot: it is a suggestive picture of a larger effect than has been observed.
The picture can be a true picture of a circus chimp that has learned to walk on its hands, so it is not "wrong". But it suggests something that is not correct.

I think it's okay to assume that people will read the caption.

 

[vanesch]

Bored,

I agree with you about Sagan's message (have read that book when I was young btw). But the point I was making was: it is a political choice to care for the "world for tomorrow" if that will cost me fun and wealth today. It is just as well my good right to choose to live still nicely for the next 20 years in all comfort, and to destroy 75% of all ecosystems in doing so, "apres nous le deluge". It is not up to a scientist to tell me not to take on that attitude. It is up to a scientist to inform me that I'm making that choice, but I'm entitled to make that choice.

So:
- scientist: you know that you're killing the rain forests with your SUV ?
- citizen: no, I didn't, am I ?
- scientist: yes you are
- citizen: ah, well, good to know. Have a nice day.
- scientist: but shouldn't you stop driving that SUV then ?
- citizen: nope, I like it too much.
- scientist: but the rain forest ?
- citizen: I weighted the pro and contra, and I prefer my SUV over the rain forest. Have a nice day.

...

 

[sylas]

The chimp walking on its hands is the equivalent of the insets of the Greenland ice plot: it is a suggestive picture of a larger effect than has been observed.
The picture can be a true picture of a circus chimp that has learned to walk on its hands, so it is not "wrong". But it suggests something that is not correct.

I don't see the problem here. The insets seem to me to be intended to show the range of melts; the minimum and maximum. I don't think that's incorrect or even misdirection. That's also relevant information.

But I don't think this is a big deal. Different people will have different reactions to the form in which something is presented, and there are all kinds of ways someone can get the wrong idea by looking too quickly at something. I think trying to avoid all possible confusions in advance ends up being unreadable. It might be possible to add two more diagrams, with a "norm" as of 1960 and a "norm" of 2000; but I don't think it will make any major difference.

As for being "dry", I would much rather scientists don't try to remain dry and dispassionate.

There's been a lot of discussion in recent years, in all kinds of contexts, for how science is communicated. There's a problem with basic science understanding in the general population, not just on climate but in all kinds of areas, and ironically the USA is particularly bad by comparison with many other nations. And (as has been pointed out!) scientists are in competition with other voices that understand and use every PR trick they can think of. The great strength of science, in my view, is that it is real. Distortion for the sake of a communication is a bad idea. But I don't this example qualifies as that.

If you follow the "scienceblogs" group set up by Seed magazine, you can see a lot of this debate on good science communication being engaged. It often gets extremely heated. One interesting contribution is a recent book by Randy Olson: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1597265632/?tag=pfamazon01-20 (link to amazon).

Good science communication has to be accurate, but it also has to engage and motivate. You won't satisfy everyone, but personally I think this report is a step in the right direction. It is very clear, very punchy, with nicely set out major points, well referenced, accurate, and engaging many popular confusions and misconceptions directly. It gets away from "climate models", which lots of people find confusing and don't understand, and deals much more in the observables.

Cheers -- sylas

PS. In the example of the rainforest and the SUV, there are a number of problems. One is that usually "citizen" does not weigh up pros and cons at all. They don't even know the pros and cons, in many cases; and they often resent being educated if the knowledge is disquieting. Second, there is the problem of the commons. A lot of people get really hung up about their rights and freedoms, and presume that they do in fact have a right to use their SUV if they like, regardless of the effect on someone else's rain forest. Basically, they consider the "atmosphere" as a common dumping ground for their SUV and it's their own business, no-one elses, what they decide to do with it. But that same atmosphere is not only theirs. It is a common resource, shared by all kinds of folks, and what one person does with the common property affects others. How do you sort out rights and freedoms in that case. I don't know; this gets beyond only science. And scientists are not only scientists, they are citizens as well, and may freely decide to engage in political and social spheres.

 

[Bored Wombat]

How do you sort out rights and freedoms in that case. I don't know; this gets beyond only science.

You work out a price of the incremental destruction of the commons.

 

[sylas]

You work out a price of the incremental destruction of the commons.

You can estimate that empirically (that is, scientifically); but science won't tell you the right way to decide how rights and freedoms apply to use of the commons.

You might use scientific methods to look at likely consequences of different policies; but the consequences and costs are not universal. Who is to say, for example, that a cost deferred to a future generation is to be avoided? Science might be able to tell you what the consequences of your actions are upon someone else, or the consequences of one society's conventions upon the resources available to another. It's politics and ethics and law -- all subjective human choices -- that determines whether you are constrained to consider that.

Cheers -- sylas

 

[Bored Wombat]

You can estimate that empirically (that is, scientifically); but science won't tell you the right way to decide how rights and freedoms apply to use of the commons.

You might use scientific methods to look at likely consequences of different policies; but the consequences and costs are not universal. Who is to say, for example, that a cost deferred to a future generation is to be avoided? Science might be able to tell you what the consequences of your actions are upon someone else, or the consequences of one society's conventions upon the resources available to another. It's politics and ethics and law -- all subjective human choices -- that determines whether you are constrained to consider that.

Cheers -- sylas

Once you've got the price, you put that price on the behaviour that causes the damage, and the market works out whether Johnny Public wants to do it when there's no "externalities" - a price to someone else that he's not paying.

In this case it would come out as a carbon tax on Johnny's fuel. I don't have the figures, but a lot of Johnnies would reconsider an SUV if filling up cost $500 or $1000. And some wouldn't. Both are good, if the money is spent relocating or otherwise conserving ecological resources.

 

[vanesch]

I don't see the problem here. The insets seem to me to be intended to show the range of melts; the minimum and maximum. I don't think that's incorrect or even misdirection. That's also relevant information.

I find it just as ill-presented as picking out, say, 1991 and 2006 and showing almost equal and even slightly increasing ice surfaces (implicitly suggesting that there is NO trend) as is done on some deniers' blogs.

This is what I mean: if "science" wants to be "better" than just any PR opinion, then it has to stick to higher standards. If something is in a presentation, it is never by coincidence. There's always a communicative reason to it, as space, time and attention are limited. So every detail has been thought of in detail. The fact that they picked exactly these two extreme examples is no coincidence, and the fact that they don't explain WHY they picked them and not 1 year earlier, indicates that one wants to "pass an implicit message". It's the core technique of communication: passing implicit messages.

Again, the most honest way would have been to take a representative (close to trend line) year in the beginning, and one in the end, and to explain that we see here a visual of what the trend line (which is what counts!) represents. It is what you EXPECT to see with the insets: something that illustrates the main point of the plot, which is the trend. That's what's dishonest there.

As for being "dry", I would much rather scientists don't try to remain dry and dispassionate.

You don't have to be "dry" - being boring. But that doesn't mean that on the grounds of being not dry, you try to convey a certain conviction - just as anyone else! If you do that (and, as you say, as a human being and as a citizen you are entitled to), then you have to take off your authoritative hat off as a scientist. Otherwise you're abusing your "scientist" authority for sending out your personal opinion on the matter and it will, in the end, harm science as a whole.

Because nobody can deny that these climate projections, even if they are the best we can do now, are still highly uncertain - compared to things like planet orbits. You can't deny that the possibility exists that the doom predictions will turn out to be towards the lower end of the rather broad error margin. That the possibility is still open that things will not turn out to be so dramatic as these reports want us to believe. And if ever that turns out to be so, "alarmist scientists" have "sold the soul" of science, and science, as a whole, will be looked upon as just an activist's language.

There's been a lot of discussion in recent years, in all kinds of contexts, for how science is communicated. There's a problem with basic science understanding in the general population, not just on climate but in all kinds of areas, and ironically the USA is particularly bad by comparison with many other nations. And (as has been pointed out!) scientists are in competition with other voices that understand and use every PR trick they can think of. The great strength of science, in my view, is that it is real.

Exactly. But only in as much as we really know for almost sure that it is real. Sometimes that takes a lot of time.

Good science communication has to be accurate, but it also has to engage and motivate. You won't satisfy everyone, but personally I think this report is a step in the right direction. It is very clear, very punchy, with nicely set out major points, well referenced, accurate, and engaging many popular confusions and misconceptions directly. It gets away from "climate models", which lots of people find confusing and don't understand, and deals much more in the observables.

That's the main error, I would think. Because you can't say anything from these observables without any modelling behind it.

And scientists are not only scientists, they are citizens as well, and may freely decide to engage in political and social spheres.

Yes, but then they have to put up their hat as a citizen, and not as a scientist. Maybe the Pope has very strong convictions on certain culinary points, such as which wine goes with which kind of meat. But if he wants to give his opinion about that, he's talking as a citizen, and not as the Pope.

 

[vanesch]

You can estimate that empirically (that is, scientifically); but science won't tell you the right way to decide how rights and freedoms apply to use of the commons.

On the international theatre, there is no "higher authority" (like the State) that will make you pay externalities. There, the only law that holds is the law of the strongest.

I don't see China set back its economic growth just for the sake of some indian tribe living in a rain forest, even though it might not be "fair".

 

[vanesch]

Just to add to this: the problem climate science is dealing with with the public, is a problem of credibility, not a problem of "gravity of its predictions". The communication effort seems to try to emphasize the gravity, while that's very counter-productive on the side of the credibility. The more you are telling that "the world is going to end" - while most people don't think that there's much wrong with their immediate environment that justifies such claims - the less credible the claims become.

In other words, many people think that climate scientists are a bunch of green activists that misuse their position as a scientist to push through a kind of green political agenda. Crying wolf louder is not going to take away that suspicion, on the contrary.

Being sober and trying to explain exactly what's known, and what's not known, might help better.

 

[sylas]

Once you've got the price, you put that price on the behaviour that causes the damage, and the market works out whether Johnny Public wants to do it when there's no "externalities" - a price to someone else that he's not paying.

In this case it would come out as a carbon tax on Johnny's fuel. I don't have the figures, but a lot of Johnnies would reconsider an SUV if filling up cost $500 or $1000. And some wouldn't. Both are good, if the money is spent relocating or otherwise conserving ecological resources.

I don't believe the folks who think it can all be solved with "the market". As for taxes; Johnny is not going to vote for the people who want to raise his taxes because (as he says) he just doesn't care about rainforest. There's also no shortage of people claiming to be scientific and telling him things he likes to hear. And hey, if a country with enough Johnnies all vote that way, it's their right, isn't it? That last is a tricky question; because it isn't actually their atmosphere, or their rainforest. The dilemma of the commons is a particularly difficult problem in political philosophy; interestingly one of the major essays on the subject was published in Science magazine.

• Garrett Hardin (1968), http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/162/3859/1243.pdf, in Science, Vol. 162, No. 3859 (Dec 13, 1968), pp. 1243-1248.

 

[mheslep]

[...]

I don't think anyone is saying that the problem is worse than the data shows. (And if they are I agree that this is ethically as well as morally wrong)...

Many say the problem is worse than the data shows, and on a daily basis. http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article2633838.ece"'s pop magazine comments, etc.

 

[mheslep]

As others said, we'll run out of fossil fuels in any case about this century or the next, ...

Rather we'll run out of cheap oil. We need not run out of coal or shale oil even in the next century.

 

[Bored Wombat]

Many say the problem is worse than the data shows, and on a daily basis. http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article2633838.ece"'s pop magazine comments, etc.

Hmm. I agree with the Inconvenient Truth comments, although I note that coral bleaching is now attributed to global warming.

But Hansen is right (and the only scientist of the two). There won't be another ice age as long as human civilisation lasts on earth.

 

[mheslep]

But Hansen is right (and the only scientist of the two). There won't be another ice age as long as human civilisation lasts on earth.

I'm sure Hansen writing in the literature is right about many things, though I don't know about humans and more ice ages. I was addressing comments in the popular press, which we seem to be on at the moment (public sentiment on AGW), where Hansen's clearly made some statements predicting conditions "worse than the data shows."

 

[Bored Wombat]

I'm sure Hansen writing in the literature is right about many things, though I don't know about humans and more ice ages. I was addressing comments in the popular press, which we seem to be on at the moment (public sentiment on AGW), where Hansen's clearly made some statements predicting conditions "worse than the data shows."

Worse than the current data shows.

1988 was fairly early days for climate modelling. It might have been within the range for what the data shows for then.

 

[Xezlec]

- scientist: you know that you're killing the rain forests with your SUV ?
- citizen: no, I didn't, am I ?
- scientist: yes you are
- citizen: ah, well, good to know. Have a nice day.
- scientist: but shouldn't you stop driving that SUV then ?
- citizen: nope, I like it too much.
- scientist: but the rain forest ?
- citizen: I weighted the pro and contra, and I prefer my SUV over the rain forest. Have a nice day.

Uh, that strikes me as a conversation imagined by someone who has never left the ivory tower of the academic world. I'm a "top contributor" on Yahoo Answers, where normal people hang out, and I promise you, it's very different out there. Have you ever been to YA, or 4chan, or YouTube, and seen how normal people think? They aren't robotic creatures of perfect logic, as you seem to be depicting them in that exchange. They won't take the initiative to go out and study the nuances of ideas presented quietly and calmly to them and carefully make a rational and informed decision based on some precise assessment of outcomes, probabilities, wants, and needs.

Here's how I think that would go on another forum (though I'm cleaning up the language a little):

- scientist: you know that you're killing the rain forests with your SUV ?
- citizen: ur gay.
- scientist: yes you are
- citizen: that's not wut ur mom said
- scientist: but shouldn't you stop driving that SUV then ?
- citizen: shudn't u stop packing fudge?
- scientist: but the rain forest ?
- citizen: trees are gay.

It's hard to engage people without getting them emotionally involved somehow, is what I'm saying, and they aren't going to just voluntarily put in the mental energy to try to understand what you're saying. You have to coerce them to, and that means pulling them in through clever use of emotion.

I mean look, you talk about presenting the facts in an unbiased way, as though the public will just accept that, as though they are keeping score of who's right more often. But really, aren't the politicians manipulating people using far more powerful tools of persuasion than the minor detail of being right and the even more minor detail of being able to back it up with complicated evidence? It's hard for me to see how science will be anything other than ignored when put up against talented persuasive speakers.

More than half of Americans believe that evolution is a myth. Is this because scientists somehow destroyed their own credibility, or is it because the persuasive power of religion is more effective at convincing people of things than naked rational argument could ever hope to be?

 

[Xezlec]

Just to add to this: the problem climate science is dealing with with the public, is a problem of credibility, not a problem of "gravity of its predictions". The communication effort seems to try to emphasize the gravity, while that's very counter-productive on the side of the credibility.

I think you are wrongly assuming that the reason science lacks "credibility" in most people's eyes is that it has failed them repeatedly by being biased. In reality, most of the failures they remember -- and the credibility gap itself -- were manufactured by political pundits.

People I've talked to have often given reasons they don't trust scientists, and not a single reason that I can remember has actually been a genuine case of scientists trying to sell them on something that didn't happen. They say they cried wolf on the "global cooling" thing, but they don't remember that that was a minority loony idea seized on by a hungry media to create a pop-culture phenomenon, not an idea most scientists backed. They say science teaches against the story of creation in the Bible. True, in a way, but not something science should be trying to atone for. They sometimes link science with Nazi Germany, again, this comes from right-wing talk radio. The fundamental reason science is not seen as "credible" is that it says things that contradict what they are trained to believe. A lack of credibility for that reason isn't something to be ashamed of, or something to be "fixed".

 

[vanesch]

It's hard to engage people without getting them emotionally involved somehow, is what I'm saying, and they aren't going to just voluntarily put in the mental energy to try to understand what you're saying. You have to coerce them to, and that means pulling them in through clever use of emotion.

But that's my point, that's eventually a politician's job, but not a scientist's job. A scientist shouldn't care what the public believes or not, and a scientist shouldn't want to coerce them into whatever action (apart from funding his research).
A scientist should give information to the public (in as much as the public is interested), might advise politicians (if they ask for it), and that's it, in my eyes.
It is not the scientist's responsibility to steer society in any way (apart from funding his research). A scientist, as a scientist, shouldn't care about what society does or doesn't, with the result of his research and whether Joe Sixpack believes him or not. Because by trying to convince Joe Sixpack, a scientist becomes, in a way, an activist for a cause, and once you're perceived as an activist for a cause, you've - in the eyes of others - lost your neutrality wrt "facts".

I mean look, you talk about presenting the facts in an unbiased way, as though the public will just accept that, as though they are keeping score of who's right more often. But really, aren't the politicians manipulating people using far more powerful tools of persuasion than the minor detail of being right and the even more minor detail of being able to back it up with complicated evidence? It's hard for me to see how science will be anything other than ignored when put up against talented persuasive speakers.

If science is ignored that shouldn't affect the scientist (as long as he gets his funding). He might eventually get his kick out of the pleasure when disaster strikes, to be able to show publications where he could say: "we had foreseen it, but politicians weren't interested - not my responsibility, but yours". That would *boost* scientific credibility. The other way around, "crying wolf" and having maybe to admit, one day, that one was somehow wrong on the gravity of the issue, will be very very damaging to the credibility of science. Science can only remain credible - I think - if it stays neutral and outside of public policy debate.

More than half of Americans believe that evolution is a myth. Is this because scientists somehow destroyed their own credibility, or is it because the persuasive power of religion is more effective at convincing people of things than naked rational argument could ever hope to be?

Of course. So there's no point trying to convince people who even believe the Earth is 6000 years old. You better don't talk to these people, rather than expose yourself to impossible debate. If on top of that, you will introduce emotional argumentation TOO, you've lost all distinction from your opponent.

With a creationist, there's no point in having a discussion, you can only loose. If the basics of scientific argumentation are not accepted, then, as a scientist, you cannot say anything, and you better don't say anything rather than entering the game of rhetoric, because then you lower yourself to the same standards as those that convinced the creationist in the first place. Yes, you can try to convince him, but by the same time, you've sold your soul, as you've rendered "valid" any non-scientific reasoning on the same level as a scientific one because you're using it yourself.

Now, as a human being, I can understand that if you think that you really need to coerce people, cost what cost, into action. But as a scientist, you're killing what sets apart science, in the process.

 

[vanesch]

The "conversation" I propose is rather:

- scientist: you know that you're killing the rain forests with your SUV ?
- citizen: ur gay.

- scientist: have a nice day. I'll spend my time elsewhere. Not worth my attention.

 

[sylas]

The "conversation" I propose is rather:
- scientist: have a nice day. I'll spend my time elsewhere. Not worth my attention.

Why would a scientist think it not worth their attention to help people get a better understanding of the real facts of the matter, especially for a subject that has a significant impact on human lives?

I appreciate that it is a waste of time talking to this person; but there are other conversations worth having; and even worth being passionate about.

Cheers -- sylas

 

[Xezlec]

But that's my point, that's eventually a politician's job, but not a scientist's job.

It's a politician's job to convince people that science is worth listening to? No, that's not right, it's a politician's job to get elected and stay there. They tell people whatever they think will get people to vote for them. Why would science be useful in that? People don't even *like* science.

A scientist shouldn't care what the public believes or not, and a scientist shouldn't want to coerce them into whatever action (apart from funding his research).

Well, the "action" in question was listening to what you have to say, so since that's the thing that (ultimately) gets people to fund your research, I'd think that would fall under your umbrella.

A scientist should give information to the public (in as much as the public is interested), might advise politicians (if they ask for it), and that's it, in my eyes.

So it should sit and wait to be consulted, never daring to assert itself. So why would anyone bother to consult it, then? You believe that you are going to sell your product without the least bit of advertising? How many phones would Motorola sell if they refused to advertise in any way and just waited to be asked whether they happened to sell phones? Having a product and not being willing to tell anyone about it unless asked seems precisely as useful as not having any product at all.

If science is ignored that shouldn't affect the scientist (as long as he gets his funding). He might eventually get his kick out of the pleasure when disaster strikes, to be able to show publications where he could say: "we had foreseen it, but politicians weren't interested - not my responsibility, but yours".

I don't know how to respond to this. It is beyond my imagination to conceive of how a human being could be so detached from the world as to watch it decay into chaos and not only not be concerned, but actually "get a kick out of" it.

The other way around, "crying wolf" and having maybe to admit, one day, that one was somehow wrong on the gravity of the issue, will be very very damaging to the credibility of science.

You keep saying this, and I keep not seeing it in practice. Again, the mass public isn't some perfect analyst. Remember that "Mad Money" guy on CNN or whatever back in the day? All he did was sit around and make predictions. He wasn't good at it. People kept watching, despite the fact that he cried wolf hundreds of times and was wrong. It took a disaster the size of the financial meltdown to finally get rid of him, and even then, only after Jon Stewart roasted him for a whole week and it grabbed headlines. There are similarly thousands of charlatans, quacks, and scammers who make money on the basic human tendency to want to see something as a success and to not be very good at remembering failures.

Of course. So there's no point trying to convince people who even believe the Earth is 6000 years old. You better don't talk to these people, rather than expose yourself to impossible debate.

Nonsense. How do you think they came to believe that in the first place? Because the other side doesn't have any qualms about trying to convince people of their beliefs, and they know what tactics actually work (sitting around, waiting for them to come to you, and trying to maintain absolute credibility by refusing to advocate for yourself at all probably isn't one of them). "Debate" may be the wrong way to think of it. Debates are between fairly high-minded, scientific types. Normal folks don't "debate", they just talk. I feel that the unwillingness of many scientists to talk to plain folks and take the initiative to put forth their side, with a little normal, human self-advocacy is the thing that damages science, by making it look cold, scary, and antisocial, as well as making it unlikely that most people will ever have heard your side.

You know, when I talk to real, live young-Earthers (which I do fairly often), I find that they just don't know about science. No one has told them much about it. Scientists refuse to lower themselves to reach out to them, and their own community certainly doesn't encourage them to go seek out science on their own. When I show them and explain to them how geology and biology and things work, they are sometimes surprised and excited, having had no idea this whole world of cool ideas existed. You'd be amazed.

If on top of that, you will introduce emotional argumentation TOO, you've lost all distinction from your opponent.

No, you have one distinction left: being actually correct, and being able to back it up. And if that isn't enough, we're screwed regardless.

The thing is, the artificial distinction you're trying to maintain, the distinction of talking to normal people totally dispassionately, is not a positive distinction. It makes you look worse, not better. It's better to behave like a normal person so as to even the odds on that front, so hopefully the slight edge of being right will be enough to put you ahead.

If the basics of scientific argumentation are not accepted,

Oh, for the last time, normal people are not scientists! That isn't how you talk to them. They aren't trained for that.

then, as a scientist, you cannot say anything, and you better don't say anything rather than entering the game of rhetoric, because then you lower yourself to the same standards as those that convinced the creationist in the first place. Yes, you can try to convince him, but by the same time, you've sold your soul, as you've rendered "valid" any non-scientific reasoning on the same level as a scientific one because you're using it yourself.

So... you acknowledge that it might work, but you don't want to do it because it makes you feel dirty? Come on, the world is messy. People aren't perfect like math. You have to roll up your sleeves a little when dealing with people.

So how well has that worked so far? Have we made those kinds of arguments look bad? Have people stopped using them? Of course not. You don't have the power to render those arguments valid or not in the minds of the public. Maybe someday, average people will be at that intellectual level. But in the real world of today, I think people already see them as on the same level, and there's not much any of us can do to change that. You just have to work with the rules the world gives you, even if they're dumb rules.

But as a scientist, you're killing what sets apart science, in the process.

No! There's what I think is the error, right there. What sets science apart is the way it is conducted, not the way it is communicated to the public. I'm all for dispassionate debate between scientists. I'm all for all the behaviors you've described, within the scientific community. I'm arguing that they don't make sense at the interface between science and the public. It's like bad impedance matching. The standards of communication are different between those two communities (obviously they are much lower in the public sphere), and by insisting that all scientists' communication follow the same hard standard right up to the sharp boundary, with no gradual transition between the two communities, you're ensuring a huge reflection coefficient, so to speak. A lot of that information will stay bottled up within the community and never get out.

 

[vanesch]

I think the main difference in opinion we have here (and I agree it is drifting away from the topic of this thread, my fault mainly, but I think it is worth having this discussion nevertheless), is that there are people who tend to think that science "has something to sell to the public", while I don't think so. Science is not a religion that needs converts. Of course, *society* should probably be better off if people were more interested in science, but that's up to society to decide, to find out, ... and not up to scientists.

It's a politician's job to convince people that science is worth listening to? No, that's not right, it's a politician's job to get elected and stay there. They tell people whatever they think will get people to vote for them. Why would science be useful in that? People don't even *like* science.

Mmm, but in that case, science shouldn't bother people, right ?

Well, the "action" in question was listening to what you have to say, so since that's the thing that (ultimately) gets people to fund your research, I'd think that would fall under your umbrella.

There's something to say for. So scientists should have people pay attention to their science, and scientists should tell people that their science is important to people, ultimately in order to get funding. I grant you that. So all this "advertising" is in essence meant to get a certain domain of science funded.

So it should sit and wait to be consulted, never daring to assert itself. So why would anyone bother to consult it, then? You believe that you are going to sell your product without the least bit of advertising? How many phones would Motorola sell if they refused to advertise in any way and just waited to be asked whether they happened to sell phones? Having a product and not being willing to tell anyone about it unless asked seems precisely as useful as not having any product at all.

But that's the point. There's no product to sell. The "product" of science are journals and books, essentially for other scientists. Of course, because science is funded by the public, scientists should do some effort to explain to that interested part of public what their stuff is about. There should indeed be some communication, for the small part of the public that is interested. And yes, you were right, there needs to be some part of propaganda, probably, in order to get funding. Maybe Kopenhagen is nothing but a big funding fancy fair for climate science, and this update report is part of that, and I missed entirely what it was about.

I don't know how to respond to this. It is beyond my imagination to conceive of how a human being could be so detached from the world as to watch it decay into chaos and not only not be concerned, but actually "get a kick out of" it.

Ah. I nevertheless think that that detachment is the first requirement in order to be able to study something. And yes, an anomalous happening would indeed render the matter to be studied more exciting, no ?

You keep saying this, and I keep not seeing it in practice. Again, the mass public isn't some perfect analyst. Remember that "Mad Money" guy on CNN or whatever back in the day? All he did was sit around and make predictions. He wasn't good at it. People kept watching, despite the fact that he cried wolf hundreds of times and was wrong. It took a disaster the size of the financial meltdown to finally get rid of him, and even then, only after Jon Stewart roasted him for a whole week and it grabbed headlines. There are similarly thousands of charlatans, quacks, and scammers who make money on the basic human tendency to want to see something as a success and to not be very good at remembering failures.

Ah, so you mean there's actually no problem in trying to "panic people" because hey, they will forget anyway if you were wrong and others do it too ?

Nonsense. How do you think they came to believe that in the first place? Because the other side doesn't have any qualms about trying to convince people of their beliefs, and they know what tactics actually work (sitting around, waiting for them to come to you, and trying to maintain absolute credibility by refusing to advocate for yourself at all probably isn't one of them). "Debate" may be the wrong way to think of it. Debates are between fairly high-minded, scientific types. Normal folks don't "debate", they just talk. I feel that the unwillingness of many scientists to talk to plain folks and take the initiative to put forth their side, with a little normal, human self-advocacy is the thing that damages science, by making it look cold, scary, and antisocial, as well as making it unlikely that most people will ever have heard your side.

But that's the point: it doesn't matter what "side" people are on, or what they believe.

You know, when I talk to real, live young-Earthers (which I do fairly often), I find that they just don't know about science. No one has told them much about it. Scientists refuse to lower themselves to reach out to them, and their own community certainly doesn't encourage them to go seek out science on their own. When I show them and explain to them how geology and biology and things work, they are sometimes surprised and excited, having had no idea this whole world of cool ideas existed. You'd be amazed.

It is their problem, it is society's problem, but it is not science's problem I'd say.

The thing is, the artificial distinction you're trying to maintain, the distinction of talking to normal people totally dispassionately, is not a positive distinction. It makes you look worse, not better. It's better to behave like a normal person so as to even the odds on that front, so hopefully the slight edge of being right will be enough to put you ahead.

But why would I care what the other person thinks (as a scientist, not as a citizen) ?
I mean, if it is a fundamental human right to believe in strange stories (called religions) and a large part of world population is convinced of such things, why would one have any "duty" to make them accept "science" - apart of course, from sufficient support to get funding ?

If a scientist thinks, according to his science, that society might face a problem in one way or another, it is of course his responsibility to inform political leaders about it, and also to inform, in as much as they are interested, public about it. However, he should respect society's mechanisms to respond to that, and that response might very well be "we don't believe you", or "we don't care". His job is done at that point and now it is in the hands of society who has to determine what to do with that given (that a scientist told them there might be a serious problem).

So how well has that worked so far? Have we made those kinds of arguments look bad? Have people stopped using them? Of course not. You don't have the power to render those arguments valid or not in the minds of the public. Maybe someday, average people will be at that intellectual level. But in the real world of today, I think people already see them as on the same level, and there's not much any of us can do to change that. You just have to work with the rules the world gives you, even if they're dumb rules.

I would say, if the intellectual level of society and its mechanisms of decision-taking are not up to the level of responding "correctly" to the scientist's message, then so be it. It is not his problem, it is society's problem and if that means society is going to put itself into big doodoo, then it has only itself to blame. Not the scientist.
You could just as well "scientifically" argue who has to be president or something. No, society has its ways of making (good or bad) decisions and has to put up with them.

A lot of that information will stay bottled up within the community and never get out.

Again, I don't know if it should by all means get out. Science is conducted for science's sake, and for the intellectual pleasure of scientists taking part in it. In as much as society wants to take advantage of that (like technological advances), it is of course their good right, but if it doesn't, that doesn't matter to science and to the intellectual pleasure of the scientists, no ? With your caveat, I agree, that it still should get ways to get funded.

Far most mathematics research never gets out either. There's a lot of science that never gets out of the "ivory tower" or only to that small fraction of population that is interested in it. The bulk of the public doesn't see a promille of what science is about.

So, yes, science should communicate to the public, but only to those that "ask" for it, and without trying to convey a "message of action", because I don't think it is its duty and it is in any case a lost case.