Shell Oil Retracts Climate Scientist’s Invitation
Here’s an article that discusses Shell Oil’s “disinviting” a climate scientist from a speaking engagement.
This is more interesting than it appears, IMO. It’s unclear if the speaker would have added constructive advice to the Shell exec team, but it’s abundantly clear that he was going to assert that Shell’s core business is incompatible with climate change mitigation. This is essentially telling an audience that it’s a force for evil.
I don’t consider myself God’s gift to public speaking (though I’ve done a ton of it), but here’s one thing I’ve nailed down fairly well: add value to the audience’s day. They’re giving you their time; you need to respect that and give them something of worth in return. FWIW, it’s this concept that led me to work extra hard on developing content for my talks. I knew I wasn’t Barack Obama or Ronald Reagan behind the podium, so I needed to make up for that with ideas that make an extra-positive impact.
Another reason that this would-be speaker chose poorly: these people know what they’re doing; they’re aware that their business is in the process of wrecking the planet. Arguing that the oil industry needs to help us shift from fossil fuels is like telling neo-Nazis they shouldn’t burn down synagogues. If it’s not already clear, they’re not going to learn it from you.
Craig,
Once again I must admire your talent for discovering the rantings of obscure newsletters, and regurgitating their outrage.
Shell invited to Peter Kalmus to address an audience as a scientist. Peter Kalmus elected instead to address the audience as a political/social activist involving legal opinions on which he has no qualifications.
Naturally, Shell withdrew his invitation.
This is the problem often encountered by those with highly specialized scientific training. “Scientist” is such a broad term, implying a very misguided perception that possessing a very narrow expertise in a highly specialized subject, also makes individual scientist to speak on any subject with competence.
Being part of a team investigating testing quark and lepton physics, quantum thermodynamics as relating to the properties of W and Z particles in a theoretical context,doesn’t necessarily provide the time for a broad understanding of the dynamics or complexity of human society.
(although, the research is certainly worth funding and essential to gain a greater understanding of physics)
The leap from a scientist accumulating very intricate and precise knowledge of a very specialized aspect of a tiny part of human knowledge, to a broad, all encompassing understanding of the planet and the human dimension, can’t be assumed.
Shell, like most of us, is interested in practical technology to provide realistic solutions that fit within the existing human social and economic dynamic.
Shell is responsible for the economic and social well being of millions, if not hundreds of millions of peoples lives and economic well being across six continents.
Emotive terms like “neo-nazi’s” “evil” are both unhelpful and silly. Shell is not “wreaking the planet”, any more than when you fill your car with gasoline. (curiously, your still elect to use Shells’ products while describing them as evil!).
That’s the trouble with elevating “scientists” to become oracles or all knowing deities!
Peter Kalmus is undoubtedly a very bright and enthusiastic individual, but his knowledge has limitations, even serious deficiencies, when he blunders into areas beyond his field of expertise.
Like many “scientists” he becomes the easily manipulated pawn of skilled political ideologues.
His attitude and lack of objectivity can be found in his statement,
“I’m pretty maxed out on the outrage, actually. Also, I hate everything about their products. Including the noise and the bad air they cause, and the fact that they make leaf blowers possible”.
Perhaps not the best or most objective of speakers, eh?