Science

1224 readers

5 users here now

This magazine is dedicated to discussions on scientific discoveries, research, and theories across various fields, including physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, and more. Whether you are a scientist, a science enthusiast, or simply curious about the world around us, this is the place for you. Here you can share your knowledge, ask questions, and engage in discussions on a wide range of scientific topics. From the latest breakthroughs to historical discoveries and ongoing research, this category covers a wide range of topics related to science.

founded 2 years ago

Catch-22: Scientific communication failures linked to faster-rising seas (thehill.com)

submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

8 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Scientists failed for decades to communicate the coming risks of rapid sea-level rise to policymakers and the public, a new study has found. That has created a climate catch-22 in which scientists …

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Scientists failed for decades to communicate the coming risks of rapid sea-level rise to policymakers and the public.

Have they? Or have the marketing and PR departments of oil and gas companies paid for endless propaganda and lobbying to prevent change?

Did scientists fail to communicate the link between cigarettes and lung cancer or was it the propaganda and lobbying of tobacco companies that convinced the government to not do anything about it for decades?

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago

Scientists have this nasty habit of being honest about degrees of confidence, which leaves politicians enough room for mental gymnastics, and allows people with direct conflicts of interest to sound totally confident in their denials.

When confronted with two people, one saying "we could see global temperatures rise anywhere from half a degree C to 2.5 degrees C, and this could lead to sea levels rising 30 to 60 cm, and may increase the frequency and strengths of hurricanes, el ninos, and la ninas" and the other saying "I promise you, none of that will happen, they're just being alarmists. Also, those numbers seem awfully small to be concerned about anyway, don't they?", well...

I see this at work all of the time. I've had to change how I report stuff because I used to have conversations like

Management: "Hey, Kichae, we released an A/B test for a new update. Did it increase playtime?"

Me: "The model shows playtime increases of between 20s to 3 minutes per week."

Management: "Guess not!"

Now I strip the uncertainty ranges, and I focus on reporting for individual cohorts, so people can see that some players went from playing 3 minutes to 4 minutes, and some players went from playing 3 hours to 4 hours. It's resulted in a lot more work for me, but at the same time, people are less likely to write off meaningful results.