Mis-Communicating The Science - How can we do it better?

We all know so-called "science" coming from political organizations like NASA is a pack of lies. So to help the public we need to mis-communicate such "science". Ie tough to be kind.

Yet the issues involved in science mis-communication are complex and often seem intractable. We've seen many different approaches, but guessing which will work (State Of Fear, The Great Global Warming Swindle) and which won't (desoggybog.com) is a tricky call.

I spend many a night thinking how better to mis-communicate the science. It is a big problem that can't simply be solved by throwing another Heartland Institute Climate Conference as much as we all love them.

No we almost need to rethink our strategy and given Blog Science's track record of daring the impossible and generally winning that dare, I guess we are the ones to do it.

The Problem

The problem is that the liberal public have an ill-founded regard for socio-organizations like NASA and the NOAA. We have the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine but surprisingly few people have heard of it.

To mis-communicate the science better we need to dilute these organizations. So far we've relied on deriding their people while promoting ours, a strategy that if in geometric form would surely look like a Wedge.

Thinking Inside the Box

If you take "thinking outside the box" to it's logical conclusion you realize all the best ideas must be inside the box where no-one expects. And why do people assume everyday thinking is constrained by a box anyway? Why not a sphere or a pyramid or even a 4 corner simultaneous 4-day time cube? These are some of the questions we dare to ask.

Suggestions For Remedying the problem

Here are some suggestions I have been sent for how we can better mis-communicate the science. I appeal to everyone to come up with more suggestions and add them in the comments. 

The first suggestion I received was from a warmist going by the name of "tim". The actual suggestion was over a paragraph long and so I have had to remove quite a few words to conserve space while maintaining the meaning:

"One method would involve you guys actually publishing arguments to something you might have heard of called "Peer Review" rather than blogs ... I ... am ... [a] liars [(sic)]"

Well first "tim", thanks for your suggestion but may I suggest that you first read up on what peer review actually is before criticizing Blog Science? In fact don't bother, reading up is always a waste of time when I can tell you. "peer review" (it's lower case not capitalized) means your work is paraded up and down in front of a panel of UN appointed bureaucrats who won't even look at it if it doesn't suggest higher taxes and an end to the US economy. Also "tim", as a warmist you didn't provide your full name and home address in accordance with my Blog Respect Policy. You've overstepped the mark and so I am giving you a 2 week ban from this Blog. I hope you will spend the time wisely reconsidering your worldview, although I expect you will squander it.

Remember that unlike warmist sites such as "realclimate" and "rabbet run" I never ban people except when I do. Therefore manmade global warming must be a myth.

Anyway with that administration work out of the way lets move on to a far better suggestion  from young 33 year old Sarah from Alaska (no not that Sarah, wrong age and besides that Sarah would never use such a crude word as "erect"):

"Why not erect mock organizations shadowing the ones environmentalists depend on? I propose they be named identically but for a preceding 'non' to signify our disgust at their views. For example we would set up the NNSIDC, the 'Non-National Snow and Ice Data Center' and NNOAA, the 'Non-National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration'"

That's a great suggestion Sarah! You have thought it all through really hard and deserve a pat on the head. 

Several of my male readers however will probably pick up on a few problems with this suggestion. I am afraid that simply putting the word "non" in front of the names of organizations couldn't possibly convince anyone. It's certainly not the kind of behavior skeptics could be seen engaging in. For one thing who would fund such a campaign? Certainly not Big Oil who have reputations to uphold.

The next thoughtful suggestion comes from Terrance Jones who scrapes together a "living" in the UK, a vassal of Socialist Europe:

"Can we not get some young conservative blokes to infiltrate academia, work their way to the top and finally take it down from the inside?"

This is certainty a good idea but I am afraid the attrition rate may be too high. If those professors are good at one thing (they aren't) it's indoctrinating youth and educating them stupid.

Do you have any suggestions on how we can better miscommunicate the science? What do you think? Send me your wild thoughts in the comments below.