The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Science communication: boring truth or exciting narrative? > Comments

Science communication: boring truth or exciting narrative? : Comments

By Charles Essery, published 10/1/2022

Science communication sells great stories, but science isn't about stories or messages or narratives.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All
Is 'science' being communicated, or is it the consensus of a few carpet-baggers using models that have been proved wrong since they first popped up. 'Science' is now in the same state as politics - bent and untrustworthy.
Posted by ttbn, Monday, 10 January 2022 9:07:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yet another wishful thinking fantasist claiming to be a climate change realist. No doubt most of this board's users will love this article, as it reinforces their delusions! But I expect a significant minority will appreciate the irony of statements like "On closer scrutiny, when asked about the actual, detailed integrity and scientific fundamentals of the presentation, these communicators are often lacking". They're certainly lacking in this article!

Charles claims Tim Flannery made 49 erroneous claims, yet the only evidence he provides is a link to a trashy report of Malcolm Turnbull defending him after a claim that Tim DIDN'T ACTUALLY MAKE was mentioned! Similarly, despite mentioning "the failings of global climate models" I notice he hasn't mentioned a single erroneous one, let alone the proportions of those that have failed because they overestimate climate change and those that have failed because they underestimate it.
Posted by Aidan, Monday, 10 January 2022 9:53:11 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Essery's been too soft on this stuff. This is Science communicators have one aim... Climbing their career greasy pole.. That it. Other scientist just work on at their desks, benches or in the field because they believe that knowledge and inquiry is good.

Blatant sheep like Aiden are common, lazy and of course Baaaah.... insulting...Baaah, their favourite pastime, other than producing faeces and eating grass!

The real point I take from this "opinion" is that we as a society, prefer the narrative, because it means we don't want to have to think... Just like you Aiden old chap!

Sadly Tbbn, the science we see in the media is all politically and self-interest driven.
Posted by Alison Jane, Monday, 10 January 2022 11:03:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There are aspects of the state of the world ocean that need to be communicated as matters of utmost urgency in order to find and implement sensible and productive sustainable solutions. Emission of CO2 is not the problem.

Up to about the mid 1980's, new empirical evidence about serious and general world fish depletion was welcomed but then demand for scientific evidence of fish population depletion was announced and virtually closed down relevant communication.
It was and continues to be an absurd situation because scientific evidence of fish depletion will never exist due to no baseline data and the continuing impossibility of scientifically counting wild fish.

Virtual lack of communication is causing enormous and worsening impact and consequences for ocean ecosystems and seafood-dependent humans and business and marine life and economies dependent on fish protein for food and livestock feed and fertilizer worldwide.
Posted by JF Aus, Monday, 10 January 2022 11:45:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JF... what you write may be correct or not.. I fear you are probably correct. Unfortunately the focus on Climate in particular, has lime-lighted a small and erroneous model driven corner of " Science" at the expense of good solid hard science, monitoring, analysis and adaptive management solutions.

I think the author has a point. How much good science has been ignored or never funded, while climate modellers and their followers fly the sky's and sail the oceans in " carbon offset business class transport.

Science thrives off debate, argument, healthy rivalry... not consensus, name throwing, slander and financial cartel environment for research funds by "story-tellers" feeding a hungry sensationalist 365/24/7 news cycle
Posted by Alison Jane, Monday, 10 January 2022 12:42:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Charles has a point. I will add another. My daughter put me onto an article in "Gizmodo" about nickel oxide being used as an artificial brain. I knew it was nonsense so I tracked it back, first to the "Conversation" where it had been borrowed from and then a plethora of articles all modified from the original author, a science communicator at Purdue University who on her web page claims she writes science stories. These people writing this stuff are not scientists, the journalists making it into news are not scientists and the politicians who see votes in it are not either- and end up investing in it.
Fiction rules everywhere.
Posted by Mick Wilson, Monday, 10 January 2022 12:48:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy