Watch your (science) language!

Selections from my Franciscan essays (hover cursor over link for source or click for full article)
‘Grammar Of Global Warming. Your English Repaired While You Wait’

Having read many a report, and retort, on global warming, it’s the risqué global scientific language that bothers me, not the rising local everyday temperature. This morning (October 28, Manila) I googled with Safesearch for “global warming” and got 10,500,000 English pages. I looked into 100 maybe; I looked at many more; slowly, I warmed up to the idea that there had been a global cooling off plain words, that if I wanted plain English to heat up, if I wanted it done right, I had to do it myself.

Still, I’m not really surprised. Except a handful like Stephen Hawking, Carl Sagan, Isaac Asimov, David Suzuki, scientists have never been known to communicate well to the public. I suspect they like it like that, because then they can stay and feel safe in their ivory towers.

So, if the whole literate world is not accepting the fact of global warming, I must blame the scientists, especially the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and thank Al Gore. The fact that the panel and the man are co-winners of the Nobel Peace Prize this year suggests to me that the Nobel Committee finally understood what the IPCC had been trying to tell the world since 1988, but only after the committee members watched Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth.

One of the things I have been trying to point out is that with improved sweet sorghum varieties from ICRISAT, it should not be too difficult to blanket the forsaken, abandoned bare soils of the drylands of the world – and then, there should be a noticeable cooling of those places on earth. In addition, sweet sorghum is a crop that is a true ally of poor farmers, as it is inexpensive to grow (it can grow well on bad soils), is an energy crop as well as it has other multiple uses. Encouraged by ICRISAT, entrepreneurs have seen the promise of business in this crop. There is now a distillery in India, Rusni Distilleries, making ethanol out of sweet sorghum with thousands of poor Indian farmers supplying the feedstock. In brief, these are the two reasons I say ‘Sweet sorghum is a rich man’s choice of a poor man’s crop.’ The technology of the Rusni model is now being transferred in the Philippines among other countries. It only goes to show that the Indians recognize a good technology when they see one – the Filipinos likewise.

Al Gore deserved the Oscar, in case anybody doubts. Nobody explains like an explainer. So, here’s my unsolicited advice to the Nobel Prize Committee: Abolish the Peace Price and in its place create 2: the Nobel Prize for Explaining, matching it with the Nobel Prize for Understanding. Plain English should be most highly regarded, not disregarded. (That goes for the Nobel Prize for Literature too.)

I suspect it’s the technical language that has on one hand prevented the masses from accepting the conclusion that there is global warming and, on the other hand, preventing them from understanding what’s going on in the first place. I estimate that only half of the scientists in the world know how to communicate in plain English, which means that half of the scientists of the world don’t know what the other half know.

Ladies and gentlemen of science, to do better than that, I recommend that you learn to communicate in layman’s terms. You can test any report of yours by talking to the man on the street and see if he understands what you’re talking about. If he doesn’t, invite me and I will give you my sympathy. Or lend you my ears; I assure you I’m a good listener. I shall come not to bury your Caesar but to raise him from your dead language.

In the meantime, the best thing I can do locally, I think, is put up a sign alongside our street that says, ‘Language Specialist. Your English Repaired While You Wait.’ The pressure will be mine, and the pleasure too. I will be competing against myself translating a paragraph from technical to popular language in 5 minutes flat, even if it happened to be a statistical interpretation, say where the correlation is 0.9 (Very Likely).

The best thing I can do globally is show you right here and now the problem with language that scientists have. They’re all geniuses to be sure; except perhaps NASA Administrator Michael Griffin who is not too concerned about global warming (thinkprogress.org), I find that they’re all talking above our heads. Of course we know some people simply want to talk over our heads.

Those who believe that global warming is largely man-made, are they talking sense? I know they’re talking technical. Those who believe that global warming is largely man talking nonsense, are they talking any better? I know they’re talking jargon too. I must be the only one trying to understand both sides now, and I find the language is getting in my way.

I’m very familiar with technical language because I’ve been reading it for the last 32 years, and it hasn’t changed much: it’s still awfully long-winded and complicated. Particularly for the last several years, 2001-2007, I have been Editor in Chief of the Philippine Journal of Crop Science, and I know the technical language is a barrier rather than a bridge to understanding of the whole paper, even by the authors, technical people themselves. A paper submitted for publication is usually a report of a study conducted; often, the author of the paper fails to connect the conclusions back to the objectives of the study because the author gets lost in the complexity of the dialect of the science. I know; I’ve edited too many of them not to have noticed. I suspect technical language was invented as a means to reveal meanings only to a select few, the elite, not to reveal them to the public, the masses.

So, what’s the problem with the global warners on global warming again? Language, not the facts; communication, not data; grammar, not statistics.

For example, here’s Wikipedia on Global Warming:

Global warming refers to the increase in the average temperature of the Earth’s near-surface air and oceans in recent decades and its projected continuation.

Wikipedia could just have said: Global warming is the world getting hotter and hotter.

Wikipedia continues: The global average air temperature near the Earth’s surface rose 0.74 +/- 0.18 C (1.33 +/- 0.32 F) during the last 100 years.

Meaning: The Earth became hotter by less than 1 degree Celsius in the last 100 years.

Now, that data is not very impressive, is it? It’s only less than 1°C in 100 years; why, that’s hardly meaningful. In fact, it’s very reassuring: The world is not getting much hotter than the global warmers would like us to believe!

Now, since I believe that man has contributed much to global warming, that which is undeniable (‘unequivocal,’ in the language of the IPCC), it’s either there is something wrong with the Wikipedia data, or there is something wrong with Wikipedia. Is this Wikipedia’s silent global warning that there is no global warming?

Here’s the BBC on Global Warming: Global warming is the rise in temperature of the earth’s atmosphere. It’s said that by the time a baby born today is 80 years old, the world will be 6 and a half degrees warmer than it is now.

That’s better. But it can still be improved, thus: Global warming is the world getting hotter. How much hotter? By about 0.08 degrees a year. By calculation, by the time a baby born today is 80 years old…

Where did I get 0.08 degrees a year? I computed: 6.5 divided by 80. Now, that gives me an idea: Instead of Wikipedia saying, The Earth became hotter by less than 1 degree Celsius in the last 100 years, perhaps Wikipedia meant to be saying, The Earth became hotter by less than 1 degree Celsius every year in the last 100 years. The experts should watch their language – and their figures.

And the Canadians, haven’t they heard? Apparently not, they haven’t been listening. The Canadian Free Press reject the thesis on Global Warming, Timothy Ball speaks for them:

Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn’t exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was one of the first Canadian PhDs in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a PhD (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening.

That’s very clear, Timothy, very strong – and very wrong. You have been staying in your ivory tower too long. I say you are also arguing from authority, claiming you know more than more than 2,000 IPCC experts combined (I got the number from Miriam Geronimus, dailyprincetonian.com).

At any rate, Timothy Ball shows that the naysayers say it better: full of conviction, full of authority, full of unmistakable words. Now, one lesson we can learn from this is clearly this: We can all learn from the naysayers.

Surprisingly, MSN Encarta is much clearer than most on Global Warming:

Global Warming or Climate Change – measurable increases in the average temperature of Earth’s atmosphere, oceans, and landmasses. Scientists believe Earth is currently facing a period of rapid warming brought on by rising levels of heat-trapping gases, known as greenhouse gases, in the atmosphere.

Greenhouse gases retain the radiant energy (heat) provided to Earth by the Sun in a process known as the greenhouse effect. Greenhouse gases occur naturally, and without them the planet would be too cold to sustain life as we know it. Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution in the mid-1700s, however, human activities have added more and more of these gases into the atmosphere. For example, levels of carbon dioxide, a powerful greenhouse gas, have risen by 35 percent since 1750, largely from the burning of fossil fuels such as coal, oil, and natural gas. With more greenhouse gases in the mix, the atmosphere acts like a thickening blanket and traps more heat.

Encarta gets 10 out of 10 from me. The Encarta author (along with the editor) on global warming deserves an award or something. Science seldom gets clearer than this.

And I shall continue writing to help bring about a climate change toward clearer, smarter, plainer English reporting and retorting on climate change. For a change.