Now on ScienceBlogs: Dr. Rolando Arafiles: Antivaccine rhetoric, colloidal silver for the flu, and Morgellons disease

Enter to Win

The Island of Doubt

An irregular exploration of the struggle between the power of rational discourse and the scientific method on one hand, and the forces of superstition and dogma on the other. Mostly regarding climate change, though.

Profile

me-fergus.jpg James Hrynyshyn is a freelance science journalist based in western North Carolina, where he tries to put degrees in marine biology and journalism to good use.

Search

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Archives

Other Doubtful Blogs

Inspiration

The Demon-Haunted World:
Science as a Candle
in the Dark, by Carl Sagan
(A review)

The Doubter's Companion:
by John Ralston Saul (Excerpts)

Skeptic Magazine: www.skeptic.com

Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal: www.csicop.org

A poem by Yehuda Amichai:
The Place
Where We Are Right


The Meaning of the
Island of Doubt


Author's site: cyamid.net


Add to Technorati Favorites! Penetrating so many secrets, we cease to believe in the unknowable. But there it sits nevertheless, calmly licking its chops.
--- H. L. Mencken

By doubting we come to inquiry; and through inquiry we perceive truth.
--- Peter Abelard

Undisguised clarity is easily mistaken for arrogance.
-- Richard Dawkins

As for evolution, it happened. Deal with it.
-- Michael Shermer.

"There is no need to sally forth, for it remains true that those things which make us human are, curiously enough, always close at hand. Resolve, then, that on this very ground, with small flags waving, and tiny blasts of tinny trumpets, we have met the enemy, and not only may he be ours, he may be us."
--Walt Kelly

« Carl Sagan | Main | Rise of the Robots »

Have we oversold climate change?

Category: climate
Posted on: December 21, 2006 7:18 AM, by James Hrynyshyn

I hope the answer is yes, in the sense that I don't want to see the even the mid-case scenarios come to pass. But this is a legitimate question, coming out of the American Geophysical Union meeting. Kevin Vranes says he senses a growing feeling that maybe climate scientists have gone a bit too far:

We tried for years - decades - to get them to listen to us about climate change. To do that we had to ramp up our rhetoric. We had to figure out ways to tone down our natural skepticism (we are scientists, after all) in order to put on a united face. We knew it would mean pushing the science harder than it should be. We knew it would mean allowing the boundary-pushers on the "it's happening" side free reign while stifling the boundary-pushers on the other side. But knowing the science, we knew the stakes to humanity were high and that the opposition to the truth would be fierce, so we knew we had to dig in. But now they are listening. Now they do believe us. Now they say they're ready to take action. And now we're wondering if we didn't create a monster. We're wondering if they realize how uncertain our projections of future climate are. We wonder if we've oversold the science. We're wondering what happened to our community, that individuals caveat even the most minor questionings of barely-proven climate change evidence, lest they be tagged as "skeptics." We're wondering if we've let our alarm at the problem trickle to the public sphere, missing all the caveats in translation that we have internalized. And we're wondering if we've let some of our scientists take the science too far, promise too much knowledge, and promote more certainty in ourselves than is warranted
I say there wasn't really an alternative; the Bush administration and even more agreeable governments weren't and still aren't taking the matter seriously enough, given the stakes. What else were responsible scientists to do?

So now, according to Vranes, the question is, how do we proceed? How do we educate the policy-makers on the nature of the uncertainties that are still very much part of climate predictions?

If the more dire predictions are correct, the climate science community doesn't have to worry. At the same time, policy is still light years away from what's necessary, and I suspect the pressure to de-emphasize the uncertainties will remain for some time.

Of course, here on the Island of Doubt, uncertainty isn't a bad thing. I look forward to a world transformed to anticipate climate change by shifting away from expensive, dirty, centralized, fossil-fuel-based economies in favor of clean, affordable, decentralized, more equitable, energy-distribution networks, regardless of how hot it gets. I say it's a win-win scenario. If we haven't oversold climate change, great. If we have, that's just fine, too.

If we do make it through this most challenging period of change and put the brakes on global warming -- there's no guarantee we will -- then I doubt history will condemn us for jumping the gun. We will have made the world a better place.

Share this: Stumbleupon Reddit Email + More

TrackBacks

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://scienceblogs.com/mt/pings/28771

Comments

1

It seems to me that the energy research community and the climate change research community neglect to mention nuclear energy, the one widely used source of electricity that doesn't put CO2 into the atmosphere.

Why not? Any answer concerning motivations has to be speculative, but here goes.

1. Research in solar energy, biomass conversion, etc. is more interesting and feasible on a smaller scale. The main nuclear technologies are known, and until new plants are built, the motivation for expensive research is limited.

2. The science policy community is reluctant to offend its political allies in the environmental community, most of which have opposed nuclear energy, associating it with
nuclear weapons.

Some environmentalists have recently changed their positions, realizing that nuclear energy is the one available source today that doesn't put CO2 in the atmosphere.

The crunch may come in 2007 when several American nuclear power plant operators say they plan to apply for construction and operating licences for new power reactors. I hope they don't lose their nerve.

Posted by: John McCarthy | December 22, 2006 8:27 PM

2

Some "responsible scientists" (your term) who support global warming have acted with too-little integrity:

http://www.informath.org/apprise/a3200.htm

--and this was in Nature.

Posted by: Sara Chan | December 26, 2006 6:46 PM

Post a Comment

(Email is required for authentication purposes only. On some blogs, comments are moderated for spam, so your comment may not appear immediately.)





ScienceBlogs

Search ScienceBlogs:

Go to:

Advertisement
Collective Imagination
Enter to win the daily giveaway
Advertisement
Collective Imagination

© 2006-2009 ScienceBlogs LLC. ScienceBlogs is a registered trademark of ScienceBlogs LLC. All rights reserved.