Quote:
Originally Posted by betenoire
Aj, I don't disagree with you and I certainly don't think that whackadoodies who say outlandish things like "If global warming is real why is it snowing today?" deserve respect.
And, you know. I'm probably pretty delusional. Intellectually I DO GET that no amount of laying out facts and figures and pie charts is going to convince people who are making false and outrageous claims that their claims are, you know, false and outrageous. I do get that. But on some level I feel like being snotty and poking fun isn't going to help our case. If someone is making fun of me I tune them out.
But then, I guess the method of delivery isn't going to matter to the whackadoodies. Be it pie charts, rants, or taking the piss out - they're not listening.
|
That last sentence is what I think is the core of the problem. I don't think we *can* penetrate the memetic immune system that holds sway on the right. I think we *can* convince the people in the middle that there aren't always two sides to every story. I understand the desire for fairness but fairness doesn't mean giving credence to counter-factual statements. Like you, I believe that good data
should drive out bad information. However, I also know that this is not always the case. Part of the problem that the reality-based community has--and in this I put Rachel Maddow--is that a lot of times reality is messy, complex and requires a willingness to deal with subtlety. Reality rarely fits neatly on a bumper-sticker and they don't make good sound bites.
Global climate change makes for a fantastic example in how the two sides are dealing with fundamentally different ways of having an argument. In the circles of climate-scientists there is no serious doubt that climate change is occurring and that the primary contributing factor is human activity. There are discussions about how good the models are and in what direction they are in disagreement with reality (i.e. will reality be worse than or better than the models predict and how much different). There are other discussions about the speed at which we'll see changes and what factors contribute what strength. There are lots of discussions about what can be done to ameliorate things. There's functionally no discussion of whether or not it IS happening. We are in uncharted territory and there are a LOT of variables. This should all be taken into account but NONE of the above should be taken to mean that we should do nothing or that there is serious doubt as to whether or not it is occurring.
If you listen to climate-change deniers, however, you would have a very different perspective on things. If ALL you did was listen to climate-change deniers you could be forgiven for believing that climate-change is a fringe science, out of the mainstream of thought in climate science. It would be understandable for you to believe that because Earth has been warmer in the past that this means that Earth being warmer in the future is no big deal. Earth has also been colder in the past. We were, long before anything as complex as us showed up, very near to a snowball Earth. Does that mean that if it got as cold on Earth now as it was, 650 million years ago, it would be no big deal? Not hardly. The last time Earth had a serious snowball epoch, was just before the appearance of multi-cellular life. But "the Earth was warmer in the past' fits on a bumper-sticker. The above paragraph does not. Some climate-change deniers, confusing climate (long-term, average patterns) with weather (short-term localized events), say with each snow "if global warming is happening, why was it cold today" or some other nonsense. That makes a great soundbite.
Which is easier to grasp "Those stupid scientists and their enviro-whacko allies (remember when they said that the Earth was going to freeze, ha ha) think that mankind is heating up the Earth. But the Earth was warmer in the past and anyway, it snowed today. Warm snow, right!" or "given the current models, we expect that if temperatures raise P degree Celsius we should expect to see a sea-level rise of N feet"?
There was a time when that kind of lunacy would be confined to the margins, as it should be. However, we no longer live in that kind of information landscape. We live in a landscape where if enough people on the Internet believe it, it becomes true--in the sense that people begin to act on that belief. The American Right has capitalized on this and the American Left has yet to figure out how to counter it. The media has also not figured out how to deal with it. What I think you see happening, though, is that media figures are getting increasingly frustrated by the cheeky games. Real reporters actually care about getting the story out there and getting the story right. It's in their occupational DNA. Constantly being faced with interviewees who spin untruths without consequence has got to get old.
Cheers
Aj