By Doug Craig From redding.com

Doug Craig was an Air Force brat born in Germany, grew up in L.A., Northern Virginia and Dayton, Ohio. Obtained a B.A. in Journalism and a Doctorate in Psychology. Employed as a clinical psychologist in private practice in Redding for 25 years. One wife, two daughters, two cats, two dogs, 36 solar panels and three hybrids. Email: [email protected]

Donner draws a nice contrast between those who seek to intentionally deceive the public regarding climate change and legitimate climate scientists who must devote themselves to actual evidence and published data.

He writes, “As a scientist, I sometimes find the challenge of communicating about climate change similar to that of operating a ship according to the rules of your native country while the ‘competitors’ take advantage of the lawless wilds of other nations.”

Just as wealthy American corporations shelter their profits from taxes in the Cayman Islands, many merchant ships pretend they are from Liberia “in order to avoid regulations and to reduce costs. Liberia is the flag of convenience.”

“People opposing the basic science of climate change in the public sphere need not adhere to the slow, rigorous method of hypothesis testing or building coherent arguments over time based on the balance of published evidence.

“That provides contrarians or ‘deniers’ the rhetorical advantage of adopting whatever ‘flag’ or argument is convenient that week, whether about sunspots, a one sentence error in a 900+ page IPCC report, or year-to-year variability in the area of Arctic sea ice.

“If the argument is proven false in the court of public opinion, you adopt another flag. The sequence of arguments does not have to be logically consistent. The goal of the organized sceptic movement is simply to keep the ship sailing.”

However, we can’t do that. We must play (and prefer to play) according to the rules. We don’t want to cheat or lie. What is the point of that?

“The temptation for scientists to adopt the practices of the opponents in the debate is what the late Steve Schneider described as ‘double ethical bind’ in a famously mis-used quote:

“On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands and buts.

“On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage.

“So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.”

Our media system finds it extremely difficult to communicate the facts of climate change to the public. Similarly, climate scientists are admittedly inept at conveying their findings to the public. And Donner recognizes how “challenging” it is “to stay level-headed about (communicating climate science) in the face of often unscrupulous opposition” from our science-less friends on the denier side. But I like Donner’s sage advice:

“In my experience, successfully communicating about climate change takes, more than anything else, patience and humility.”

Amen.

For more on this sto0ry go to:

http://blogs.redding.com/dcraig/archives/2013/09/simon-donner-an-1.html

See also story in today’s iNews Cayman “Arctic Sea Ice Up 60 Percent in 2013”