After a weekend to reflect on my posts from Friday (here and here)--and a few taunting e-mails from John--I decided I wanted to try to clarify what I was trying to say. After rereading my posts, I realize that in my haste to post quickly, I placed too much blame where it doesn't belong and not enough where it does.
To begin, I want to say that I consider myself to be a part of the scientific community. While economics can never be a pure science the methods economists use are borrowed heavily from the bench sciences. With that said, the scientific community is notoriously ill-equipped to convey complicated material and findings to the general public. The conduit for conveying scientific material is typically the media. But, the media gets to pick and choose the juicy morsels that suit their needs. Politicians, similarly, get to pick and choose the juicy morsels that best suit their needs.
Policy makers are faced with the unenviable task of developing policy to benefit society in this climate of selective information. The public is faced with the unenviable task of forming opinions and preferences in this climate of selective information.
So, should we blame the public when they don't have a full grasp of a highly complex problem? Scientists understand that there are few certainties in the world of science. All findings are subject to caveats, assumptions and conditions. The public is frustrated by this and in many cases dismisses valid science as self-contradictory. Is this the fault of the public?
In my view, no. It is the fault of the communicators--scientists (including pseudo-scientists like economists), the media, politicians and policy makers*.
For years, I would blame my students when they performed poorly on an exam. How could this happen? This stuff is so obvious to me and I explained everything to them, how could everyone do so poorly? Finally I realized, if everyone is misunderstanding what I say, maybe it's my fault. Maybe I'm not giving them the information in a way they understand. The students weren't idiots (well, at least not all of them), I was. And condescendingly dismissing the students as clueless did nothing but solidify their view that I was elitist.
Global warming is the same way. The science is complicated. Policy options are complicated. Media coverage is complicated. And the public is overwhelmed to the point of indifference. Condescendingly blaming them for our lack of communication abilities does nothing but solidify our position as elitists.
We need a better strategy for communicating the science of global warming. I don't know what that strategy is, but hopefully recognizing the need is a first step. That was what I was trying to say on Friday.
*I intentionally left out businesses from this list. It is not the responsibility of businesses to be impartial. The remainder of the list at least live under a veil of impartiality.
