Is there a place for propaganda in science? Should scientists be in the business of promoting an agenda?

Question

NASA pseudo-scientist James Hansen has openly admitted to distorting the truth to promote his agenda.

Do you agree with this tactic?

James Hansen "Emphasis on extreme scenarios may have been appropriate at one time, when the public and decision-makers were relatively unaware of the global warming issue."

Answer 1

Some think ends justify means.

The Weather Channel does the same thing.  They know viewership increases during bad weather.  They try to keep the hype going the rest of the time promoting "global warming"

We need to understand that "warming" is a product that we are being sold.

OK, I know this gives believers headaches.  Right now they have their stick of goo out and placing it on their heads saying:

"Head-On! Apply Directly to the forehead!"

"Head-On! Apply Directly to the forehead!"

"Head-On! Apply Directly to the forehead!"

Answer 2

A scientist might call his agenda a "hypothesis".  He promotes it by searching for evidence (or designing experiments) to test the hypothesis.  (S)he is supposed to honestly report anything which does *not* support the hypothesis, but may dismiss it as experimental error, etc.  It then is supposed to go to a journal for peer review and publication.  Presumably, peers will pick it apart if it is flawed.

Answer 3

Exagerating is the worst thing they could do regarding their credibility.  Why trust anyone at all when they tend to make stuff up now and then--e.g., Hillary Clinton.

It's like telling kids not to smoke pot or their kids will be born without faces.

Bob, here is a 'worst case scenario':

We start clearing and farming forests and grassland to produce ethanol on a grand scale ramping up the use of fertilizers and insecticides and fresh water.  We deny third world countries from modernizing.  Food prices skyrocket.  Political and economic instability result.

Answer 4

"Science" rarely stands alone. It is often used as a tool to spur policy. In one scenario, science can be a relatively benign discovery that Pluto does not have the orbit that was previously understood and can be downgraded to a dwarf planet. This is more of a discovery. In another scenario, a scientist may discover that a meteor will strike the earth, causing serious and deleterious affects. There is something to be done in the second scenario. Translate that to an issue like climate change, where the course of the trend/CO2 emissions, etc are based on the most-learneds' experience and understanding then complicate it by telling those with power and money that they may be directly causing the trend, and then no matter what you do, you have an agenda.

I think catestraphizing and distortion may have had a higher end here. Do I agree with the tactic? Well, IMO the ends justify the means in this case. Now that the issue is finally on the table, the best information available must be used to help answer the problem.

Answer 5

To be a true scientist you have to look at facts with an unbiased eye. This is very difficult to do but it is a goal all technical people need to strive for. People who skew data for their own selfish means are not honorable and have no credibility in my eyes.

Answer 6

As stated by others, the true scientist strives to be completely objective. She can have a personal agenda (wiping out malaria for example), and propaganda does play a role in this, as people must be made aware of how malaria is spread and . It is very difficult to separate politics from science and technology. Nuclear weapons, after all, were developed for political and military reasons. The world is not a pure place and people have mixed motives for many goals. As far as scientists are concerned the only real sin is lying and falsifying results. Speculation is fine, as long as it is labelled as such, and agitating for a cause (like antiseptic measures before surgery) can be perfectly justifiable.

Answer 7

What Hansen was saying was the scenarios could happen. He gave the possibility based on the range of scientific opinion. There is no distortion in giving extreme scenarios. What is a distortion is saying nothing will happen, or we will destroy the planet.

BTW, NASA is not in the business of retaining your so called "pseudo-scientists." So you can stop trying to ride that dead horse.

Answer 8

"pseudo-scientist"?  lol  Hansen is one of the most highly respected scientists in the world.  For those of you ignorant of science, that's based on the number of published peer-reviewed scientific papers he's written and how frequently they are referenced by other scientists in their own published scientific papers.

I think the reality is that you are a pseudo-skeptic who refuses to believe in AGW because of your political ideology.

Hansen didn't "distort the truth", he communicated the urgency of the matter by pointing out some of the worst-case scenario's his models predicted.  Which, by the way, are far less serious than those being raised by other respected climate scientists that think Hansen has underestimated the situation.

Answer 9

Absolutely not !

Once a scientist has been caught in a falsification all his or her data should be called into question and you you should ask yourself whether they have any credibility at all.

Same as the Korean stem cell scientist that was found to have falsified cloning data. The scientific community wasted no time in shunning him and even considered criminal charges. Because it calls into question the validity of all data being produced in that field.

Answer 10

No.

But telling people about the "worst case scenario" is not that.

Answer 11

Here is another one:

Scientist’s need “to get some broader based

support, to capture the public’s imagination...that,

of course, entails 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 may have…each of us

has to decide what the right balance is between

being effective and being honest.

Stephen Schneider, Senior Fellow at the Center for Environment Science and Policy of

the Institute for International Studie, and Professor by Courtesy in the Department of Civil

and Environmental Engineering at Stanford University, Discover Magazine

It takes many years for a theory to become established in science.  Scientist know that.  It is still Einsteins theory of relativity.  It is only when they pass every single test that they become law.  That takes many years, especially as something as complicated as the earth's climate. So when a scientific organization rushes to endorse the AGW theory before the study of climate  has even begun, you have to be suspicious of their motives.  If it is based on science you have to wait for the evidence to first come in, before you form an opinion.  That never happened in climate science.

Answer 12

Genuine scientists who are thoughtful and meticulous in their thinking are getting railroaded by the fastfood soundbite culture. A real scientist will always speak in terms of probability and will rarely give an impression of extreme confidence. This is good for science but bad for PR. Because some bozo who doesn't know what he's talking about will be loud and obnoxious and get good publicity.