A follow-up on that last climate post (thanks to all who read and commented):
Tune in to ABC Wednesday afternoon for a televised debate about climate change. The lineup pits climate scientists Richard Somerville, Brenda Ekwurzel, and RealClimate‘s Gavin Schmidt against skeptics Michael Crichton, Richard Lindzen, and Philip Stott. (Lindzen and Stott are respected scientists – it’s not clear what landed Crichton on the panel besides name recognition).
Lindzen is one of the most exalted and crotchety thorns still jabbing at climate science’s side. I’ve heard from casualties of his atmospheric physics classes that he’s a very difficult man to out-argue. Here’s hoping that the debate rises above bait-and-switch (i.e., “We’re not causing all of it, so we shouldn’t worry about it.). At the same time, here’s hoping it doesn’t sink so deeply into differential equations that we hear an entire TV nation simultaneously scratching its head.
Another of MIT’s esteemed climate scientists, Carl Wunsch, was the victim of severe mischaracterization on the UK’s Channel 4 program “The Great Global Warming Swindle” last week. Wunsch thinks that climate change is real and dangerous, but wishes that people would stop proclaiming that the Gulf Stream is about to shut down. When he tried to say as much to Channel 4, he found himself edited down to a sound bite implying that human carbon emissions are inconsequential. You can find his side of the story at RealClimate as well as a copy of his politely irate e-mail to Channel 4.
And in today’s NYT, a plea for moderation on both sides. The story cites scientists unhappy with Al Gore’s stark assessment who still think society needs to be taking strong steps.
The trouble is that moderation is not a very good spur to action, as well-meaning RealClimate reader “Colin” sweetly illustrated:
I have no idea where the truth lies in any of this, but I come down on the sceptic side, because I believe if there really was a problem, the government would, as an example, drop VAT to zero on all energy efficient goods, cars etc, to encourage the masses to buy items that are good for the environment.
He continued:
Could all you climate scientologist answer me a few questions? Why can’t all you people who really know get together and present a totally unbiased and impartial, scientific paper on what is really happening, declaring all sources of funding etc?
Sounds like the IPCC report to me. Still, I like this comment, because it demonstrates that people actually do expect government to act in our best interests. Trouble is, that means government inaction is sort of implicit evidence that things aren’t as bad as they sound.
In that case, Gore’s conviction that people need to be shocked into taking matters into their own hands sounds like wisdom. But how do you square that with science’s tradition of careful analysis and understatement? Good luck to Somerville, Ekwurzel, and Schmidt.
No I don’t think shock tactics are such a good idea. Principally because without reason in the equation people can react in the wrong way, sometimes what we feel is not the best solution.
For example many green campaigners are also strongly opposed to nuclear power, now while I don’t get a “warm fuzzy” feeling over the thought of massive development of civilian nuclear electricity projects I can see with logic that its our only hope. Even as a stop-gap until better technology is developed. Other sources of energy simply don’t deliver enough.
See where I’m coming from?
Unless knowledge is your agenda, your agenda will detour you in your search for knowledge.
Global warming alarmists have taken a large detour in their scientific research.
Wolfie: I do see where you’re coming from, and thanks for the comment. But when you’re talking about catastrophe, there’s a fine line between sober discussion and downplaying the risk. How do you get a lifelong smoker to quit? Not with JAMA articles. It usually takes a heart attack.
RealScience: Thanks for your post. I wholeheartedly agree with your first sentence. I think you would probably agree that global warming deniers are on their own detour.
While I don’t think that shock tactics are a good long-term strategy, if there is the possibility of something truly shocking happening as a result of climate change, I think that scientists who study and understand these processes have some amount of moral responsibility to present their knowledge to the public. To a large extent I think the fact that there IS a debate on climate change is a result of continued persistence on the part of climate scientists. One or two alarmists do nothing but get ridiculed on Fox News; get a couple hundred together and put out an IPCC report and people take notice. Even Americans.