Unfortunately I’ll never know the full truth, halfway through the article I clicked “maybe later” to the subscribe to newsletter prompt that popped up and it jumped me back to the top of the page, which is a good signal to stop reading.
Alternative title: "I wanted to get published in Nature, rather than Forestry journal, so I emphasized climate change rather than forestry management in my paper. I did this because Forestry journal doesn't look as good on my CV."
I'll admit my title isn't as snappy but it has the virtue of accuracy.
This is unfortunately very common. "Icky" topics in science are not likely to get funding or published in a good journal. There is a line one must toe and to step out of it, you need to be someone big first, and often the only way to get big is to walk the line for a long time.
If science is truly and completely uncensored, lots of accepted cultural norms would be completely flipped over, including things that people have long considered "settled" or treated as facts. Alas, people just want to hear what they like and the grants are allocated as such. Part of the reason lots of people are disillusioned with academia and go to the industry instead. You can have strong evidences supporting your hypothesis but the court of public opinion does not care one bit about the science. They only want someone agreeing with them.
> In theory, scientific research should prize curiosity, dispassionate objectivity, and a commitment to uncovering the truth.
That sounds great, but science is done by scientists, and scientists are all human. And humans, all of them, are emotional creatures, and subject to a pantheon of cognitive biases.
And maybe it would be fun to imagine a version of science, or a version of scientists, who aren't emotional human beings, but we're never going to get that. What we need—and what I think we have, more or less—is a version of science that works despite all of those inescapable human issues. Yes, it might not be as fast as an ideal science could be, but that's okay. We'll reach the same conclusions, in the end.
I wonder if attitudes to climate change have germinated on the West's post Christian values.
We're largely a secular society now, but carbon emissions are akin to a sin that must be atoned for by cutting them. If it is unpleasant, almost better - sin must not be merely repented but also atoned. If we don't, we will meet a just punishment for our sin.
Studying workaround or saying some things are OK is no use, as sin is absolutely bad and can't have upsides.
I initially thought it's maybe a bit far fetched but think also:
- how dogmatic and aggressive some people are about climate change.
- how climate change is much bigger an issue in the West (in general perception) than elsewhere
- how more Christian people seem to care less about climate change
None of it is about the hard science of it, fwiw I think we're screwed and need to think hard about our survival as a species. But the article does touch on a nerve of the dogma of climate change discussion.
I agree that the notion of the "original sin" has leeched into the western secular society, and quite ironically I have to say (and I say this as a practicing Muslim). We also see it in many of the so called social justice movements today in the west.
Climate change is probably a bigger issue in the West than elsewhere because the developing world is too busy working to reach the same level of education / wealth / comfort. Maybe it's a little like how economic growth tends to level off birth rates. Once you reach a certain level of comfort you have time to worry about other things than mere survival. Like climate change.
Climate change affects the whole world. While rich, industrialized countries can afford to make all kinds of adaptions of the type the author is talking about there is a large number of poor countries with a huge number of poor people who can't. This is why it is essential that the world stop dumping massive amounts of carbon into the atmosphere.
8 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 29.8 ms ] threadI'll admit my title isn't as snappy but it has the virtue of accuracy.
If science is truly and completely uncensored, lots of accepted cultural norms would be completely flipped over, including things that people have long considered "settled" or treated as facts. Alas, people just want to hear what they like and the grants are allocated as such. Part of the reason lots of people are disillusioned with academia and go to the industry instead. You can have strong evidences supporting your hypothesis but the court of public opinion does not care one bit about the science. They only want someone agreeing with them.
That sounds great, but science is done by scientists, and scientists are all human. And humans, all of them, are emotional creatures, and subject to a pantheon of cognitive biases.
And maybe it would be fun to imagine a version of science, or a version of scientists, who aren't emotional human beings, but we're never going to get that. What we need—and what I think we have, more or less—is a version of science that works despite all of those inescapable human issues. Yes, it might not be as fast as an ideal science could be, but that's okay. We'll reach the same conclusions, in the end.
We're largely a secular society now, but carbon emissions are akin to a sin that must be atoned for by cutting them. If it is unpleasant, almost better - sin must not be merely repented but also atoned. If we don't, we will meet a just punishment for our sin.
Studying workaround or saying some things are OK is no use, as sin is absolutely bad and can't have upsides.
I initially thought it's maybe a bit far fetched but think also:
- how dogmatic and aggressive some people are about climate change.
- how climate change is much bigger an issue in the West (in general perception) than elsewhere
- how more Christian people seem to care less about climate change
None of it is about the hard science of it, fwiw I think we're screwed and need to think hard about our survival as a species. But the article does touch on a nerve of the dogma of climate change discussion.