Quote:
Originally Posted by sjastro
Carl,
I don't assume the viewing audience is quite as dumb and ignorant as you give them credit for.
Plimer is a scientist in his own profession, that doesn't make him a climate scientist. His opinions are as lightweight as those of Monboit.
The fact that neither is capable of arguing climate science at a high technical level would actually make the discussion comprehensible to most people.
Plimer simply refused to answer some very basic questions and lost all credibility in the process.
Steven
|
How many people in the general public, Steven, have enough science knowledge to be able to follow the debate. Most people in the general public have very poor understanding of even the most basic science. You only have to look at the level of performance in schools w.r.t. what's being taught. I know teachers who are supposedly science teachers who can't teach the subject!!!
Yes, what you have said there was true, but at least Plimer knows how to do the research to at least form an opinion. Plus he's knowledgeable enough in science to be able to understand what he's looking at. He's been trained in the scientific method, Monboit hasn't. The problem with most scientist is that despite them knowing a lot about their subject matter, they aren't good communicators. If you can't argue climate science at a high level with your peers, than be able to bring to a level that can be understood by non specialists and the public, then you shouldn't be trying to communicate it. That should be left to those who can. If you can't argue the debate because you haven't the knowledge, and you present to a debate trying to make a convincing argument, you'll only misinform your audience and confuse them even further. That's what we don't want.
But what we also don't want is someone presenting to an argument not telling the audience the whole of the matter, just pushing a "political" line for the sake of reputation or other vested interests.