A blog after my own heart. One that espouses extreme opinions, no holds barred. Absurdio reductum to the end!
Do be careful to read it in the right spirit.
Communication Dilemmas #1: Wishing Death on People Without Losing Them
Part of being a science communicator is hoping a natural disaster kills as many members of the audience as possible, as soon as possible, with as much media exposure as possible. As a communicator myself, I’d like nothing better than if thousands of middle-class white people died in an extreme weather event—preferably one with global warming’s fingerprints on it. Live on cable news. Tomorrow.
The hardest thing about communicating the deadliness of the climate problem is that it isn’t killing anyone. And just between us, let’s be honest: the average member of the public is a bit (how can I put it politely?) of a moron. It’s all well and good for the science to tell us global warming is more dangerous than Nazism, but Joe Q. Flyover doesn’t understand science. He wants evidence.
So we’ve probably reached the limits of what science communication can achieve. At this point only nature herself can close the consensus gap—or the fear gap.
There are other great headlines:
How Will Climate Change Affect People With Your First Name?
Under the heading The Lasting Impacts Of Climate Change, the authors list:
5. Hundreds of species of marine life to die off because they’re too weak-willed and pathetic to handle a little ocean acidification.
6. Nation’s Brad population to begin going shirtless as early as March.
I wasn’t sure, initially, how credible the information was, so—in the spirit of actual skepticism, as opposed to “skepticism”—I sniffed around the parent site for a bit. I must admit I hadn’t heard of The Onion before, but they’re clearly a bona fide organisation, as opposed to something run out of a guy’s garage.
*cough* OISM petition *cough*
Brad has a way of turning things inside out:
“We’ve studied hundreds of unsuccessful exposures—’failures to convert’ [FTC]—and asked participants what went wrong with the rapport between scientist and citizen.
The single biggest rapport-breaker?
Time and time again, scientists find the public arrogant.”
Take a hard hat and glass of Vodka. Channel the fear in the comments.
Don’t give the game away OK? Egg them on!
(Go on, get into the spirit. Life really is absurd)
* * *
UPDATE: OK OK — more clues. Read carefully. Brad knows us well, this is deep view that only someone who knows this debate from the inside could possibly write:
• Deniers are continually pressing for a scientific debate. Why? Because they can’t refute the political reality (that climate change necessitates a new world order). So they attack the weakest link—the science—instead.
UPDATE#2: Wit is a weapon
The word satire derives from satura, and its origin was not influenced by the Greek mythological figure of the satyr. In the 17th century, philologist Isaac Casaubon was the first to dispute the etymology of satire from satyr, contrary to the belief up to that time. Despite the separate origin, satire shares the subversive nature of the satyrs themselves, which was a force in opposition to urbanity, decorum, and civilization itself.
h/t to Handjive and Marc Morano.