Thursday 24 September 2009

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 ( 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.


  1. genetically modified organism25 September 2009 at 16:24

    Re-branding should be part of the solution. If we place things in more accurate terms, the bedwetting warmistas dire words will be so unappealing the masses will abandon that so called science for Blog Science and its comforting explanatory power.

    You recently posted a graph with "temperature" replaced by "prosperity". This is exactly the sort of thing I mean, but such changes should be concerted and consistent.

    Take so-called "carbon dioxide" as the algore-huggers call CO2. Most people do not realize that the term "carbon dioxide" is actually part of the warmlarmist brainwashing science agenda. Excuse my diversion, but I think it will help illustrate the need for re-branding.

    When you think about how "carbon dioxide" actually contains the word "die", it is pretty clear. Most insidiously it does not contain it when you read it but only when you say it. They want CO2 to sound scary and evil. The term is supposed to indicate the structure of the molecule like the abbreviation "CO2" does - one atom of carbon and two atoms of oxygen. Many substances are named like this - H2O is called "water" because each molecule is made of one water atom which has the abbreviation H2O. Yet the chickenlittles purposely made the term incorrectly to promote their agenda. You do not denote two in words with "die", as proved with bicycle (2 wheels), bivalve (2 shells), or bite (2 jaws).

    If it was called "carbon bioxide" as is correct then people would better understand that CO2 is a measure of wealth. In using their own trick against them the "scientists" will probably not realize that "buy" is now in the term. But right-minded people will better recognize that cutting emissions would equal poor while continuing to increase atmospheric concentrations would equal rich and able to purchase great stuff like SUVs, yachts, and coal power plants.

    I know others have tried calling CO2 "life". That is pretty good. We can do that too. We just have to push these truly "green" terms (green in the only meaningful sense - relating to American dollars) harder and make sure people know them instead of the IPCC-worshippers' words.

    So much needs to be replaced, but Blog Science means everyone can do what they want and the magic of free market means everything important will be done the best possible way. I have one more for now: "emissions" (as in depressing "sshh, no talking!") should be "factory farts" (factories mean jobs and making stuff to buy and farts are funny).

  2. Firstly Inferno, you are being WAAAAY too modest! This blog has hammered home so many nails into the coffin of AGW it is now more nail than coffin, and you literally have the Warmist bedwetters, er, moistening their bedlinen.

    But I have a few ideas, none original (original thought is over-rated, all the best ideas [e.g. the wheel] have now been done so why re-invent them?) but an accumulation of examples of 'best practice' from around the BS-o-sphere.

    1. Grab that pendulum and swing it right back... Report every example of record-setting cold weather from around the world, ignore new hot records. Now I know that you're thinking - regional weather reports are irelevant to a climate debate and may attract criticisms of an 'unscientific' approach, but consider this ... all you would be doing is re-establishing balance in the media. Every conceivable and trifling event, such as the doubling of land surface that is in drought, the 2003 European heat wave, arctic ice melt, and the movement of species poleward is instantaneously blamed on global warming and that warming is blamed on us by the mainstream media sheeple-people. Time to redress the balance and also ask some 'inconvenient' questions ... as you did in one of your very first posts ...If Global Warming is true, why are there still snowstorms?.

    You never got an answer did you?

    2. Tell the human story. The invasion of climate science by the occupying army (or Team), the corruption of the peer review process, the ruthless suppression of dissent have not been victimless. The public love an underdog. The plucky determined amateur proving the so-called 'experts' wrong also always plays well (think E-G Beck). Perhaps a guest post by the shy and mild-mannered Viscount Monckton on the extreme lengths he had to go to to get his modest demolition of the 'concensus' on climate sensitivity published by the American Physical Society?

  3. [continued] Joanne Nova (Be still, my heart) has a great piece out on 'a scientific association behaving like a teenage school-girl:repeating baseless assumptions, and spurning colleagues who disagree.'. It's the story of Mitchell Taylor, who became an unperson at the Polar Bear Specialist Group for the thoughtcrime of telling the truth about manmade climate change. Bedwetter Computer 'scientist' Deltoid attempts to defend the indefensible by giving the coward who 'uninvited' Taylor a platform:-

    This meeting is about coordinating ongoing and future research and management. Dr. Taylor is no longer in a position to assist with such issues. The PBSG has heard Dr. Taylor's views on climate warming many times. I would note that Dr. Taylor is not a trained climatologist and his perspectives are not relevant to the discussions and intent of this meeting.

    Pathetic huh? This kinda thing needs to be milked for all its worth.

    [BTW Your fellow warrior for truth Anthony Watts characterises Joanne as a 'friend'. Is this code? Is it too much to hope that their eyes met across a crowded Heartland (Heartland!) conference room, has a common quest for simple scientific purity blossomed into Romance? Watts has not yet denied it. Imagine the moustachioed uber-Skeptic that union would produce!]

    3. Grab the headline... move on.

    Statistics show that 87% of people never read beyond the headline, so it needs to be packed with 'information'. Information such as

    Treasury Department Releases Documents Showing Cap-and-Trade Costs Could Hit $300 Billion Annually


    U.S. Treasury: The Costs of Cap and Trade, $1761 per year per household.

    also crank up the cred with reference to 'leaked documents', 'suppressed reports'. You can safely bury the facts of the analysis e.g. the Treasury response:

    that math ignores the redistribution of revenue back to consumers. It only looks at one side of the balance sheet. It would only be true if you think the Administration was going to pile all the cash on the White House lawn and set it on fire. the fifth or sixth paragraph - few will get that far. Heck, now I think of it why spoil a good headline? Leave the 'facts' for those without a clear political purpose to their blogging...

  4. GMO,

    When you think about how "carbon dioxide" actually contains the word "die", it is pretty clear. Most insidiously it does not contain it when you read it but only when you say it.

    You miss just how insidious this is. It also contains the -cide suffix, once again only when you say it. Think about it: homocide, suicide, genocide, dioxide... Definitely screaming for a rebranding, how about "carbon bioxygen?"

    Another point I think is worth mentioning: the fact that no one has heard of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine isn't such a bad thing -- that means they also haven't heard any warmist smears against the organization, and it still sounds authoritative when you say, "A new report from the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine..." On that note, I'm trying to come up with some good potential new think tank names to create when everyone has heard of the current bunch... obviously the word "Institute" is required, but what else? I kind of like think tanks with words like "Science," "Policy," and "Technology" in their names, what about you guys?

  5. The post by GMO reminds me of the campaign back in the '60's, initiated when the then new series "Star Trek" began bandying the nonsense science of "Dilithium Crystals" around.

    It was pointed out that the entirely superfluous dramatic use of the term 'dilithium' ("die" + "lithium") could potentially cause increased and unnecessary anxiety to paranoid schizophrenics (or "psychos") fearful for the safety of any manic-depressive friends they might have.

    Obviously these unfortunates don't need any encouragement to hear secret messages even when the TV is off, let alone during early evening family programming.

    The response from Paramount allegedly followed the now familiar pattern of a string of ad homs that political correctness wouldn't allow these days.

    Steering (vaguely) back on topic, if someone was vapourised by a phaser, would that amount to a net increase or decrease in carbon emissions?

  6. Hi guys. I think labelling is really important at least it is speaking for myself. So for example I wear DIESEL jeans and I have some DIESEL sunglasses for when it gets sunny which isnt very often what with the cooling imo. This is a cool label and you know its good cuz its really expensive. So what I think is thqat if some designers cd decide on CARBON as a label or maybe CO2 which wd be a bit like DKNY or FCUK then that would make it cool just like its cool to say fcuk now.


    Summer x

  7. Another idea guys, also backing music is v important so I think maybe this blog shd have a track which plays when you open the page like maybe something like "Take My Breath Away" (I just love that track).


    Summmer x

  8. Im on a roll! Another idea is to go viral on youtube like wotzhername doing 'I dreamed a dream' (I just love that track). So if we had a song which went viral that would be gr8! I just made this up -

    Ooh hoo CO2
    You know we love you
    CO2 CO2
    We love you CO2

    And there cd be a dance number which wd catch on in the clubs like with 'YMCA' where everybody does the letter shapes except doing CO2 shapes instead!


    Summer x

  9. I had no idea that so many creative people frequented this blog.

    Not being a musician (only a low-level electric guitar functionary) I'm unqualified to comment on Summer and JAJ's excellent suggestions and contributions.

    But I have had an idea for an ice sculpture made from precipitated CO2 collected from the South Pole.

    It should be in the form of an enormous dry-ice globe placed on the former World Trade Centre site in NYC and titled "What's Up With That"?

    Global cooling should ensure that millions will visit and marvel at its pristine roundnessivity over the coming centuries.

  10. Yeah, I think I can come up with some suggestions that might help ya there Mr. Infernerator:

    1. You're thinking too much and not making enough broad-brush declarations in italics and/or bold font. When you start in with the graphs and big words, or even small words and big graphs, you're losing lots of Joe and Jane 24-packs. And you know, you've got a lot of 'em to lose, so just maybe consider that not all of your audience is at your level.

    2. Relatedly, not that many people can follow an argument that originates from the inside of the lower end of the digestive tract. I realize that most of you all are justifiably comfortable in that domain, but not everyone is, so might just keep that in mind too. Pull 'er on out ever' now 'n again.

    3. The medium is the message as someone said a ways back. This means you should consult a medium. Your understanding of climate science will be even higher than it is now, I guarantee it.

  11. Wait, this crazy brilliant thought just occurred to me! You'll need to be sitting down for this. Stay with me for a moment.

    What if,

    instead of trying to figure out how to better mis-communicate the science...

    we work on communicating the mis-science? (!!!)

    My mind has been racing since I had this thought. I'm still trying to work out the implications, but I thought I'd share that much with you guys, as it seemed important.

  12. Hey, Eli never banned anyone, he just deletes their comments and sends them a pound of carrots.

  13. Dr. Inferno,

    I believe it will also help our cause if we undermine the academic aristocracy and tear down the Ivory Tower by using our own academic might. I often hear of silly secular scientists working for as many as four or five years to get their doctorates, whereas I know from experience that an intelligent person can get a proper doctorate is as little as three months. It just takes about $2,500 and writing a forty or fifty page thesis validating the a priori supposition of your field. This just shows that many of the warmists are just thick dullards if it takes them years upon years to get a Ph.D.

    So, my suggestion is that we should all go ahead and get doctorates (or even two, like me) and then we can use the sense of "authority" that they use to spread their Communist propaganda against them. Reading all the brilliant replies posted to this blog, I have no doubt that almost all of us can be proper academics in just a few short months. If the warmists opt to call into question our credentials, we can play that game as well. Further, since most people do not know or care about the value of these doctorates, any confusion we through into the mix only goes to undermine the Marxist Ivory Tower (M.I.T) and their allies.

    The only reason we are not taken as seriously as the Islamofascist Algorites is because we do not have the credentials. But there is nothing stopping us from getting them. Like I said, about three months, $2,500, and a fifty page thesis and there you go. Then we are exactly equal to the warmist "scientists" out to raise taxes and destroy America even in their own liberal elitist "academic" construct.

    This also lays aside the whole silly "peer review" issue. Since peer review is the only way you can get legitimacy in the M.I.T. construct and the warmists flatly refuse to review anything they don't like, the truth never gets a chance. They devised this system specifically for this purpose, to exclude ideas that they do not like. It is essentially a "good old boy" network that excludes anything that goes against their preconceived notions and political ideology.

    However, if all we blog scientists and allies were also properly titled (Ph.D., JD, &c.) then we could peer review our own work, creating a second network, with ours being devoted to truth, justice, and the American way; as opposed to their vile anti-American, anti-Christian, anti-prosperity agenda. Then, anything they write that hasn't been peer reviewed by our side can be discard as absolute rubbish and beneath consideration as serious science. Exactly as they do to the truth tellers today.

    Further, just a wee bit of practice to overcome basic bad grammar and spelling goes a huge distance in the eyes of most Americans in convincing them that you know what you are talking about. Presentation really is everything. Notice how well some of the better think tanks on the pro-American side of science, like the Discovery Institute does. Notice they all have credentials, they all peer review each other, and they give a professional appearance.

    As long as there are no patently obvious indications that one side of a debate is less intelligent than the other, then most people are inclined to believe that both sides have a valid point. "The benefit of the doubt."

    Yours in Christ,
    Prof. Malvolio

  14. We should also have simple bumper stickers that capture the blog science. Like, putting the following sticker

    CO2 is Life.


    I'm pro-life and I vote!

  15. Baron von Monckhofen29 September 2009 at 00:44

    I think we need to use more CAPITAL LETTERS! That is an EXCELLENT way to get the MESSAGE through about how RIGHT WE ARE!!!! And we must NOT forget the EXCLAMATION POINTS!!! And if we SPELL a bit PORLY, then WE show everybody that WE are no IVORY TOWER acedemics! By the way, just HOW MANY ELPHANTS did they KILL to make those IVORY TOWERS? What a BLOODY HYPROPSY they say they want to SAVE the ELPHANTS and then they KILL them all to BUILD IVORY TOWERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    And REMEMBER. co2 IS the gas OF life. They call it pollotion, we call it life!

    (OK, I know that I misspelled a few words here. That was intentinal, so Joe Sexpack would think I’m on his level. Of course I'm not really a retard!)

  16. Baron von Monckhofen29 September 2009 at 04:54

    It is very important to frame the issue in terms of the EVERY-DAY LIFE of the average Joe Suxpack. For instance, Joe likes to drink beer. So you can explain:
    "The alarmists say that carbon dioxide warms the earth. Let me show you how to disprove that. Go to the fridge and grab a can of BEER. It feels nice and COOL does it not? And still, all those bubbles in the BEER is carbon dioxide. But the BEER is not boiling! The carbon dioxide makes the BEER really DELICIOUS instead! Now drink the beer, and grab another can. Don't you feel much BETTER now? Thanks to carbon dioxide!!!! Yummie yummie!"

  17. Baron von Monckhofen29 September 2009 at 06:52

    We can all learn a lot from Dr Girma, the genius who has been whipping the trolls' asses red like a communist junta covered in strawebrry jam and red toenail paint, in a gargantuan thread on the environazinquisitionst "blog" Deltoid. For instance, observe how Grima single-handed destroys the myth of "limited resources."

    If the mass of the earth does not decrease, what then are worried about?

    It means there will not be any limitation in resources.

    If plants in their life form new molecules that store solar energy, and when animals ingest these molecules their body split the molecules to get the energy they need to live their life, then the amount of the element remains the same. That is, in life on earth, new molecules are formed by plants that store energy, and when these molecules are broken by animals they get the energy they needed to live their life.

    As there is no depletion of any of the elements, the concept of “resource is limited” appears to be a fiction.

    If the mass of the earth does not decrease, what then are worried about?

    We are just using up the energy of the sun. Don’t worry about saving the energy from the sun. It is always there whether you use it or not. Try to live your life with out manufactured fear, my friends.

  18. Baron von Monckhofen30 September 2009 at 00:24

    Here is another beautiful video: CO2 is green.

  19. Whats all this struff about trees? Hey Inferno cd you maybe do a post about how we dont have to believe in trees and why its wrong to pick cherries and stuff which is a shame really cuz I like cherries.


    Summer x

  20. Summer Flower wrote:
    "cuz I like cherries"

    I think we can all agree with that heh heh sentiment SF.

    I've been considering Dr Inferno's blog suggestion, and I think organizing half of the following, half the government and academic muti-trillion dollar scam "research" slush-funds could be sucked up by "friendlies". Then the warmist's front organisations would just have to suck it up, but at far less of a rate than previously.

    Non-Hadley Climate Research unit simple hometruths (Nhadcrush)

    Policy Institute of Space Studies & Earth Research (PISSER)

    Atmospheric Research, Solar Energy, Oceanic Volcanic Earth Resources for Temperature Incited Transition (ARSEOVERTIT)

    Climate Research Institute for Paleo Energy Studies (CRIPES)

    Oceanic Holistic Climate Research Institute & Knee-jerk Environmental Yearbook (OHCRIKEY)

  21. It's all over folks. Game Over. we can pack up and go home. The war is won. In years to come we will all remember what we doing the moment that we heard the news.

    The Hockey Stick has been demolished. (Again).

    You may remember I posted that our main weapon was the reliance of the AGW fraudsters on model predictions and that past predictions had been like, 300% wrong when compared with reality? Well our other main weapon is the reliance of the bedwetters on tree-ring proxies that form the 'Hockey-Stick' curve, showing that recent warming is unnatural. Clearly, from basic logic, if it was naturally warmer before then the warmth now must be natural. Stands to reason. Let us recap what we know about the Hockey Stick study ...

    1. Blog Scientists Extraordinaire Stephen McIntyre and Ross Mckitrick showed that centred principle component analysis should not have been used, instead non-centred null eigenvalues corrected for autocorrelation and inverted through a Las Vegas wavelet transform is the way to go, as any O level statistics student can tell you. Or something.

    2. If you randomly toss coins at the Hockey Stick Alogorithm, they do not give a random distribution, no they always form into a 'Hockey Stick' shaped pattern on the floor.

    3. The study is reliant on Bristlecone pine trees. It is well known that it was during the Medieval Warm Period and Golden Age that people started the practice of cutting down pine trees at Christmas to bring into their homes. They therefore culled all the healthy pines, meaning that only the slower growing sickly pines remained. Thus any study reliant on pine trees will 'a priori' wrongly imply a cold warm period.

    But the ever-patient McIntrye has taken Hockey Stick demolition to the next level, proving once and for all that global warming is the biggest fraud ever perpetrated on the free world. Rummaging around behind a University filing cabinet in a room where all the IPCC fraudulent evidence is kept, carelessly left unlocked (virtually speaking) he found some old tree-ring data. Crunching the numbers he found that if he replaced 10 of the trees he didn't like with

    some others that he did like, then the 'blade of the stick quite literally melted away like fairy dust'. Therefore there is no way that CO2 can be heating up our planet. Read more from topnotch Blog Scientists ...

    Quote of the week #20 – ding dong the stick is dead -
    Breaking news: Cherry Picking of Historic Proportions ... It appears Steve McIntyre has killed the Hockey Stick a second time… Joanne Nova
    How the global warming industry is based on one MASSIVE lie
    Leading UK Climate Scientists Must Explain or Resign

    Well, so long, Mann, Gore and Hansen, you had a good run but the game is up. Time to get a proper job.

  22. All we gotta do is let people know that Copenhagen spelled backwards is Negahnepoc (like nega-epoch (kinda)) and then we can use that word whenever someone uses that obscene “anthropocene” term, and then everything will be all better.

  23. Baron von Monckhofen1 October 2009 at 08:21


    Yes, this Yamal stuff is evidently the nail in the coffin for the entire great global warming scam!

    And both Briffa (never trust anybody with a beard) and the hockey stick manufacturers at Real-Hockey-Stick-Climate are too big cowards to respond.
    Maybe they should stick their hockey stick somewhere were the sun doesn't shine!

    Like in a dark closet.

  24. Wrinkled Retainer1 October 2009 at 11:21


    Not only has Prof McIntyre broken the Hockey Stick for good this time (or is it a different one, hard to tell with all those splinters!!), but the ecotheistic warmofascists at Open Mind (what a joke name for the most closed minds you will find anywhere) and Real Climate (another joke name for ivory tower loonies who would'nt know REAL if you rubbed their noses in it) have both recognized DENIAL DEPOT recently!!!

    They know the GAME IS UP. They have to admit the TRUTH. The only truth is BLOG SCIENCE and no site has shown this better than DENIAL DEPOT. Well done Inferno and all the other blog science experts here!

  25. Someone somewhere pointed out that Algore had to use a CHERRY PICKER to reinforce the oooh-scary upward sweep of the hockey stick.

    I mean, like how in-your-face can these warmists be?

    No wonder Prof McIntyre avoids the secretive, agenda-driven, peer review circus that condones and encourages use of such theatrical props and make-believe to twist the science.

  26. Baron von Monckhofen2 October 2009 at 01:35

    The silence of the warmalarmistas is absolutely DEAFENING. They know their big SCAM is over! Al Gore will have to get a real job, and so do Hansen, Mann and Briffa, the entire notorius GANG of four!!!! Carbon dioxide cannot cause any warming - that is PROVEN by Professor McIntyre (NEXT NOBEL PRICE WINNER) without the shadow of a doubt!

  27. Note to Baron M: Galileo did not win the Nobel prize either, so we can not eliminate possibility of fraud there as well.

  28. Thanks for this info; this issue has been bugging me like crazy for the last couple of days :)

  29. Genuinely helpful publish. I recently came across your blog post as well as needed to state that I have actually cherished examining your website posts. Runescape Gold Cheap Runescape Gold

  30. Thanks for this excellent information, you're publishing effectively i favor significantly. Now i'm actually stunned at this page.