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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

I would argue Science and Politics have always been intertwined.

The issue is Science has "learned", like our Politicians, that opinion gets more grants and exposure.
Opinion journalism fuels the above lamentable feedback loop where facts are lost to the populist fire.

Science needs to do better and go back to what makes it such a great endeavor, seek the facts and nothing but the facts..

Alison Jane,
>Blatant sheep like Aiden...
Actually the blatant sheep generally dislike me. They can't stand the way I actually check and call out their lies about hat Tim Flannery said, for example.

So you know what they do? Of course you do, because you've just done it: you try to pull the wool over the eyes of others by libellously accusing me of being unwilling to think!

You're sort of right about one thing though:science does thrive on debate. But it thrives on honest debate: it gains nothing from wasting time debating flat earthers who constantly accuse everything the scientists are saying of being fake news. And while science can truly thrive when new evidence and insights lead people to reject consensus, it suffers when consensus is rejected due merely to an ideological opposition to consensus!

Communication is a wonderful thing, no doubt. We all need it and we need stories that sometimes guide, sometimes entertain, at other times enrich. Unfortunately, like most things in life narrative is a two edged sword and even those who know 'the truth' need it to communicate effectively. But, and here's the rub, the power of PR can be insidious and used for nefarious purposes. Climate is the best example of the success of PR because the notable 'climate emergency' believers in the left legacy media eg The Guardian, NYT, BBC, ABC, Fairfax will not cover alternative views. They have chosen to take a position, driven by Green propaganda and to omit alternatives views, despite knowing 'the science' is never settled. It is far from settled as the progression of IPCC reports shows, progressively downgrading a range of 'emergency' data and moving the dial from alarmism to adaptation (perhaps their masters believe they have won the battle and all that's left is a few skirmishes to clean up 😊). Just go to the left legacy media websites and search for non-alarmist interviews/ articles: Michael Shellenberger 'Apocalypse Never', Bjorn Lomborg 'False Alarm', Ian Plimer 'Green Murder', Steven Koonin 'Unsettled' and compare their coverage with 'the believers'.

Koonin was, of course, Obama's advisor on climate. He gives a very good summation of what's actually in the IPCC report compared with what the alarmist media chose to report. It's big on facts and low on narrative: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Tz1MiX1p5I

Aiden, the word that underlies your "philosophy" is what you define as good and honest debate. Anything you don't " believe" is obviously neither good or honest. Polarization will continue with such standpoints.

Richard, its interesting you raise the examples of " non-believers like Lomberg, Plimmer and Koonin. Koonin's book is particularly insightful because of his " behind closed doors" (most signif doors in the world!). Its amazing how his Obama credentials are forgoten by the lelfties who loved him, just as they did (in a vicious way) when thy hunted him out of his BBC career because he dared to question the " narrative". The "Ministry of Truth" that Essery referees to is very similar to the Premier and Cabinet Offices that govern NSW, and ACT!

For those who haven't read Koonin's book, its worth a go ( buy or lend from local library).

This statement is telling:

'There was a time when a PhD was a tome-like document infused with the blood, sweat and tears of the candidate, wrapped in an expensive binding. Now a PhD can be awarded for anything between 3-5 peer-reviewed publications in "respected, relevant" journals.'

Basically purports that quantitative on size of a thesis is more value than researching related but slightly different themes or hypotheses in related journals; doesn't make any sense, i.e. good research must only come in a long single thesis document? Latter day researchers, holders of doctorates and professors cannot be compared to someone who did a long thesis some years ago, simply because of the size?

On Flannery, not sure how it helps his reputation, like others, to be a patron of Sustainable Population Australia, presenting sub-optimal demographic analysis, informed by white nativists in the US (supporters of Trump while pretending to be 'progressive'), to both deflect from fossil fuels and focus upon the 'other' or 'post 1970s immigrants' as an environmental 'hygiene' issue due to misunderstood 'population growth' aka fossil fuel supported ZPG?

Australia like the UK, is following the 'leadership' of US radical right libertarians, first denying now delaying sensible climitae & Covid measures, trashing public broadcasters in case they promote science or analysis, and generally encouraging 'gut instincts' or beliefs over science, the 'New Americans'?