By DAVID NG
The IPCC report1
The STWBTIPCCFARCC2013TPSB report2
The OWCGWIPCCFR report3
The YIACCAYII report4
The OKSILTRIWSHAGTATTSAAEOTSOCC report5
The BTESCCIRINAGTAAIPOF report6
The OKTIA95LTIOFBTB100ITKOATIPITSR report7
The IOWSAACASCBAT report8
The MYCSTW100CITPRBWAKHTKOSTTTO report9
The SIATITRBYKSIW report10
The FFSJRTGROALTTRACNPOI report11
The ABCIDMOLPCOAGWFDOEICFFIIFFATL report12
The SCTINFSC report13
The AAYWWMLBGOTKOSMTIIBOLWLOMMOTOACISFMAOGEOCI report14
The ASTTQIAYOBWWTIPCCIS report15
The BIYTWTFJGALBB report16
The INWTTARSIIFHSLCHUMCPBTLUIPHBSWGTGWA95CTYCAYCCAGTBMTALDWY report17
- – -
1. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
2. Specifically, this would be the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Fifth Assessment Report Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis
3. Or we could go with Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change For Realz
4. Yes, it’s about climate change, and yes, it’s important.
5. O.K. So it’s like this report is where several hundred academics get together and try to summarize all available evidence on the science of climate change.
6. Basically the evidence says: climate change is real, it’s not a good thing; and also, it’s partly our fault.
7. O.K. Technically, it’s a 95% likelihood that it’s our fault, but that’s because 100% is the kind of assessment that isn’t possible in the scientific realm.
8. In other words: scientists are as certain as scientists can be about this.
9. Maybe you can say things with 100% certainty in the political realm, but we all know how those kinds of statements tend to turn out.
10. Seriously, it’s all there in the report. Because, you know… Science, it WORKS.
11. For fuck’s sake, just read the goddam report! Or at least try to read a credible news piece on it.
12. And by credible, I don’t mean outlets, lobbyists, political commentary or advocacy groups where funding directly or even indirectly comes from folks invested in fossil fuels and the like.
13. Scientific conspiracy? There is no fucking scientific conspiracy.
14. Also, ask yourself: who would most likely be guilty of that kind of spin? Messaging that is influenced by oil lobbyists with lots of marketing money? Or thousands of academics conspiring in secret faculty meetings and organizing grand exchanges of covert information?
15. Anyway, screw this. The question is, are you on board with what the IPCC is saying?
16. Because if yes, then wonderful! The future just got a little bit better…
17. If no? Well then, that’s a real shame. Isn’t it funny how scientific laws can help us make climatology predictions, but they’re less useful in predicting human behavior? Still, we’re going to go with a 95% certainty that your children and your children’s children are going to be more than a little disappointed with you.
(Originally published at the Science Creative Quarterly)
And that’s just for all papers published from November 2012 to December 2013.
To quote: “I have brought my previous study (see here and here) up-to-date by reviewing peer-reviewed articles in scientific journals over the period from Nov. 12, 2012 through December 31, 2013. I found 2,258 articles, written by a total of 9,136 authors. (Download the chart above here.) Only one article, by a single author in the Herald of the Russian Academy of Sciences, rejected man-made global warming. I discuss that article here.”
By James Powell.
O.K. Just in the preliminary stages of thinking a bit more about how I might want to moderate my session at the upcoming Science Online Together 2014 conference #scio14. For now, I just wanted to make sure I reprint my pitch (from here), so that I have it on popperfont.
“Lately, I’ve been thinking a lot about “science literacy. A small part of this is because I’m trying to write a book on this very topic: a bigger part is because I’ve discovered that thinking about such things turns out to be far easier than writing about such things.
Anyway, what I (and many others) have surmised is that the concept of science literacy is very much a moving target. What you think it is, what the general public assumes it to be, and what academics make of it, tends to vary significantly. Benchmarks will differ enormously if you query a scientist, a farmer, an artist, a teacher, or even that family member of yours that can’t help but tune out whenever we science types open our mouths.
Part of the problem is that science literacy always sounds uncomfortably vague, like something you’re pretty sure you’re familiar with, but then on closer examination, realize that maybe you’re not. It’s a bit like asking someone whether they know what a computer is: they’ll always say yes, but ask yourself – do they really? It also doesn’t help that the concept itself is always in a state of relentless change – which has a lot to do with information ecosystems, with media challenges, with shifting science culture, and also (unfortunately) because of the subversive activities from the likes of L.P.W.L.T.B.L.’s (loud people who like to be loud), P.W.S.P.O.M.I.’s (people with strong political or monetary interests), and of course, the D.C.D.s (dangerously clueless douchebags).
And as if this doesn’t already sound a little hopeless, it turns out that plenty of research is suggesting that our biology is not very good at thinking scientifically anyway! So how about a session that digs a little deeper into all of this science literacy stuff? And also what our community tends to think about it? It seems to me something that could be quite interesting, possibly a bit eye opening for some, therapeutic for others, obviously interactive and in the best case scenario, useful overall. Useful, because ultimately, it’s not a bad way to piece together a big picture, and illustrate the nuances involved (it is a moving target afterall), all with a mind to help us understand why and how we might want to communicate science.”
More on this later, but for now – game on!
By Evelyn Bracklow of La Philie. Via Colossal.