A new article in Physics Today wonders why the ordinary dummy folk is at pains accepting the theory of anthropogenic climate change, instead of listening to the glorious infallible science. Steven Sherwood argues that many novel scientific theories in the past - other inconvenient truths - were seldom accepted by a recalcitrant folk from the start. It seems to me that the reasons are much more simple. Scientists like Sherwood are unable to accept that reality is not like they would it to be, and I am not referring precisely to global warming.
The author is surprised why it is possible that a scientific theory that has been experimentally corroborated many times, like anthropogenic global warming, is still not accepted by a large portions of the ordinary population. The article, unfortunately, does not explicitly explore the reasons why this could be so, but it transpires Sherwood suspects that a 'science backlash' is under way. Scientist should be prepared and improve their 'communication of science' : 'A first step toward better public communication of science, and the reason we need it, may lie in recognizing why the backlash happens: the frailty of human reason and supremacy of emotional concerns that we humans all share but do not always acknowledge. '
This seems to me a very non-critical mindset. What is causing the science backlash ? No one is explicitly blamed but I would assume that the author is thinking of the US Republicans, the oil industry, or both. Sherwood spares no single word to ask himself whether the science community may perhaps, eventually, probably have incurred some errors, overseen uncertainties, announced wrong predictions, etc. When others can be blamed, why think about our own deficiencies ? How unscientific.