re: #310 LudwigVanQuixote

I have a new AGW post about how science fails to communicate, even when it is utterly correct and “wins” the debate.

Alley and Rohrabacher: Brain vs Bluster

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com…]

If you watch this video you will see, Dana Rohrbacher, a Republican (of course) who is angling to be chairman of the Science and Technology committee, attempting to bluster against Dr. Richard Alley, an expert on paleo-climate from Penn State.

While Rohrbacher skips from debunked taking point to debunked talking point, Alley explains clearly and concisely the obvious reasons why the various talking points brought by the politician are garbage. There is only one problem. The listener must have a basic grasp of science and scientific reasoning to understand just how badly Rohrbacher was taken apart by Alley.

Science needs a Makeover and marketing department. I know why they shy away from advocacy and think for the most part that is the correct tact, but in this case it’s time for advocacy and campaign. The detractors have already accused science of advocacy and campaigning.

I watched John Abraham’s thorough review of a Monckton seminar and thought that was perfect: based on facts, science, reasoning, but light on rhetoric and advocacy. Plus, he was polite and fair. We need a lot more of that.

Science also needs a champion. Al Gore it has been be I don’t think he’s the best choice (for a couple reasons). It’s big subject but it seems it’s now being broached but the scientists themselves.