Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
CREATOR, C
ONA
S
O
KSUUSTER, C
OM
CUMfcTE
1
SCIENCE
AN INCONVENIENT T
RW
TW
This clever and amusing 2009 cartoon by Arthur 'Chip' Bok represents the view of many climate
change sceptics. The classic image of scientists as trustworthy men in white coats is here referred
to subversively. It is depicted as a front for corrupt practices of 'cooking' data so as to create the
impression of serious anthropogenic global warming ahead (depicted by the lighter held under a
correspondingly hot thermometer). The tag line 'An inconvenient truth' is a witty riposte to Al Gore,
whose docufilm of this name was predicated on trust that the 'climate change consensus' among
qualified scientists is honestly arrived at. The cartoon can equally be interpreted as satire, mocking
the absurd idea of a worldwide scientific conspiracy to use science to pursue a political agenda to
regulate 'petro-capitalism'. It is worth comparing climate change science with the forestry science
discussed in
Chapter 6
. The 'environmental myth' of West African deforestation could arguably
survive in ways a climate change 'hoax' surely could not because of the small numbers of experts
involved who were routinely shielded from criticism.
This clever and amusing 2009 cartoon by Arthur 'Chip' Bok represents the view of many climate
change sceptics. The classic image of scientists as trustworthy men in white coats is here referred
to subversively. It is depicted as a front for corrupt practices of 'cooking' data so as to create the
impression of serious anthropogenic global warming ahead (depicted by the lighter held under a
correspondingly hot thermometer). The tag line 'An inconvenient truth' is a witty riposte to Al Gore,
whose docufilm of this name was predicated on trust that the 'climate change consensus' among
qualified scientists is honestly arrived at. The cartoon can equally be interpreted as satire, mocking
the absurd idea of a worldwide scientific conspiracy to use science to pursue a political agenda to
regulate 'petro-capitalism'. It is worth comparing climate change science with the forestry science
discussed in Chapter 6. The 'environmental myth' of West African deforestation could arguably
survive in ways a climate change 'hoax' surely could not because of the small numbers of experts
involved who were routinely shielded from criticism.
on CRU members of the IPCC of the febrile political environment sur-
rounding climate change science early in the new millennium. Arguably,
a combination of naïvety and defensiveness made the likes of Professors
Phil Jones and Keith Briffa deal unprofessionally with sceptics who, in the
United States, were successfully questioning scientific wisdom in the public
domain.
What lessons can we draw for scientific self-governance and science com-
munication? As you may have concluded from the previous study task, one
lesson we should surely
not
draw is this: science would be more trustworthy
if we were to more frequently open its inner workings to widespread public
scrutiny. This is not the most feasible or credible way to keep scientists hon-
est. Additionally, there are more appropriate ways to allow citizens to have a
say about science. To be specific: public involvement in science 'upstream' is
arguably important in many cases (e.g. we could collectively debate whether
