The deniers think climate science is crap. They are largely coming from outside the scientific community. But, that, in itself does not make their arguments invalid. Well, actually, sorta, but, you know what I mean. There could be some kind of group-think and peer pressure in the scientific community to tow the party line. Skepticism is a good thing, and the discourse around climate change doesn't really allow for a lot of dissent So how is one to sort through this mess of competing claims?
Gavin Schmidt, a climatologist at NASA, argues that skepticism is good, but informed skepticism. He's interviewed on PBS's Need to Know - Climate Desk Podcast Skepticism vs. denial about climate change (11 mins). It's a nice discussion and worth the eleven minutes' investment. Schmidt recommends: that one not to take any scientist's or denier's word for it, but rather look to the consensus of the scientific academies. Individually, scientists may have pet motives, but when vetted and filtered through a scientific academy the truth will out, due to the way that science works.The Climate Desk is an interesting project, featured regularly on PBS Need to Know. They describe themselves comme ca:
The Climate Desk is a journalistic collaboration dedicated to exploring the impact - human, environmental, economic, political - of a changing climate. Partners included The Atlantic, The Center for Investigative Reporting, Grist, Mother Jones, Slate, Wired and PBS's Need to Know. Our podcast is hosted by Need to Know's Alison Stewart and features experts on the issue.
I remember prior to 2000 when I took a course in Global Climate Change and the University of Toronto, that I was unsure of whether global warming was all that it was cracked up to be. I came away from that course completely convinced that it is a human-made problem, that it is a potentially very serious problem, and that it needs to be addressed sooner rather than later. Predicting the future, however, is another matter entirely which is subject to a gazillion permutations. Since 2000, I have follow with interest the changes to what has actually been happening and the predictions of what is going to happen. It has increased the cause for concern given that the speed of the measurable changes have outstripped even some of the most dire predictions from ten years ago. I recall a conversation with my uncle a few years ago where he spoke of scientists receiving funding for climate projects, and that the reason for their continued trumpeting of this cause is continued funding. Yes, we live in a world that largely has money as it's foundation, and yes, some persons within the climate change community are going to lie, cheat, etc. But that kind of thing goes on in every community. Look at the entire financial industry! The whole fucking thing is a swindle, but nobody in my workplace (for example) is questioning it.
ReplyDelete