Over at the Climate Nuremberg blog (run by a blogger with the nom-de-death of Brad P. Keyes), they have wished death on much of their audience. The motto of this site is “When what you really need is some sort of Climate Nuremberg.” Mind you, Brad is a self-described “science communicator” whatever that means. My guess, however, is that he’s quite a few notches below Carl Zimmer, for example.
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 for thousands of middle-class white people to die 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.
Cognitive scientist C. R. R. Kampen thinks the annihilation of a city of 150,000 people might just provide the teaching moment we need …
Amen, brother! The sooner we rid this planet of the pestilence called the human race, the better off everyone will be. Especially the cockroaches and crows.
Brad doesn’t want to give his real last name because then we could actually verify his credentials. Far easier to call for the deaths of thousands behind the shield of anonymity. FYI his Twitter handle is @BradPKeyes.