Real Science is Hard
If you're interested in the Canadian Blogosphere take on 'Global Warming' there's been lots of talk lately, starting at Stageleft,
continuing at Heart of the Matter, continuing at Bound by Gravity and also spilling over at Calgary Grit and Obsidian Tempest.
The upshot is that there are some right-wing folks who disagree that with the vast majority of climate change experts who believe that human activity is contributing to a general rise of earth's surface temperature (i.e. global warming) or who think that even if we are contributing to rising temperatures we should just roll with the punches (so to speak) instead of trying to prevent/minimize our impact.
What I find interesting is the contrast between the complexity of the scientific work on one hand and the simplicity of those who are arguing against the general consensus which arises from the scientific work. What it comes down to is that real science is hard, pseudo-science is easy.
Anyway, for those who are interested, here's a link to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a UN body set up to co-ordinate/synthesize the work done/knowledge gained on this topic by scientists from around the globe.
And here's a link to a very clearly written Blog, RealClimate which is run by some climate scientists and is devoted to providing timely, accurate responses/clarifications to mainstream media discussions of climate change. It's worth a look (for future reference, I've added it to my links under miscellaneous) - thanks to Jonathan for pointing it out.
To me, the question we should be talking about is how should we go about reducing our impact on the climate. I don't think that Rick Mercer commercials are the answer, but I admit that I don't know what is. I'm thinking that the division of powers between Federal and Provincial is probably a complicating factor, but don't know that for sure. Suggestions are welcome.
continuing at Heart of the Matter, continuing at Bound by Gravity and also spilling over at Calgary Grit and Obsidian Tempest.
The upshot is that there are some right-wing folks who disagree that with the vast majority of climate change experts who believe that human activity is contributing to a general rise of earth's surface temperature (i.e. global warming) or who think that even if we are contributing to rising temperatures we should just roll with the punches (so to speak) instead of trying to prevent/minimize our impact.
What I find interesting is the contrast between the complexity of the scientific work on one hand and the simplicity of those who are arguing against the general consensus which arises from the scientific work. What it comes down to is that real science is hard, pseudo-science is easy.
Anyway, for those who are interested, here's a link to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a UN body set up to co-ordinate/synthesize the work done/knowledge gained on this topic by scientists from around the globe.
And here's a link to a very clearly written Blog, RealClimate which is run by some climate scientists and is devoted to providing timely, accurate responses/clarifications to mainstream media discussions of climate change. It's worth a look (for future reference, I've added it to my links under miscellaneous) - thanks to Jonathan for pointing it out.
To me, the question we should be talking about is how should we go about reducing our impact on the climate. I don't think that Rick Mercer commercials are the answer, but I admit that I don't know what is. I'm thinking that the division of powers between Federal and Provincial is probably a complicating factor, but don't know that for sure. Suggestions are welcome.
Labels: climate change, global warming, oversimplifying, science
posted by Declan at
Saturday, January 08, 2005
7 Comments:
For what it's worth, another good blog along these lines (which I know some of the Canadian blogosphere already knows about, because I see you guys over there) is Deltoid ( http://cgi.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/cgi-bin/blog/ ) by Tim Lambert.
Tim is probably to the right of me on many issues (moderately but firmly pro-gun, for instance) but first and foremost, he's a scientist, and he is consistantly one of the best junk-science debunkers on the web. He specializes in bad gun science (which frequently means he's savaging work which he would normally be somewhat sympathetic with) and junk climate science, but I don't know if that's because of interests of his or just because there's so much of that stuff.
By
Jon Dursi, at 6:54 PM
Declan:
By the way, I think your `science is hard; pseudo-science is easy' construction neatly summarizes the problem.
Quick nit: the RealClimate link in your story points to the IPCC.
By
Jon Dursi, at 11:22 AM
Thanks Jonathan, I fixed the link (that's what I get for not doing a thorough preview).
By
Declan, at 11:43 AM
"To me, the question we should be talking about is how should we go about reducing our impact on the climate."
Yes, I agree we should cut pollution and other enviornmentally destructive practices - but to do that you need to convince people that there is a problem, and a lot of people don't buy the global warming line of reasoning.
Hence my "barking up the wrong tree" post. ;)
By
Andrew, at 7:17 AM
"A lot of people don't buy the global warming line of reasoning."
The only people who don't buy the global warming line of reasoning, Andrew, are either people like you who intentionally don't buy it, or people who are misinformed by people like you.
By
Jon Dursi, at 9:07 AM
"Yes, I agree we should cut pollution and other enviornmentally destructive practices - but to do that you need to convince people that there is a problem, and a lot of people don't buy the global warming line of reasoning."
We need to do a lot of things on the environmental front. To save salmon runs we have to persuade people that the cost/effort is worth it, and that salmon really are in trouble.
To clean up the Tar Sands in Sydney (and other toxic sites) we generally just need government to pay (while of course also making every effort to make those responsible pay).
To solve the brown sky in Toronto problem we need to reduce vehicle usage, reduce emissions per vehicle and shut down / regulate some of the worst polluters upwind of Toronto (notably coal plants).
To preserve the Oak Ridges moraine we need land use planning.
To preserve the wolves in Alqonquin park we need programs which work with the farmers and other residents in the areas around the park.
Personally, I don't see a real connection between these problems and global warming.
To solve global warming we need to reduce our emissions of greenhouse gases (or increase our absorption of them). It's just one more in a long list, although potentially both the most important in terms of its potential impact and the hardest to solve due to it being a collective action problem (prisoners dilemma of truly global proportions. Not to mention the fact that solving it may negatively impact the most powerful lobby group on the planet.
As for waiting to take action until everyone is convinced it's a problem, that's not how democracy works, only a majority needs to be convinced, and in Canada we have that.
Besides, the simple fact is that atmospheric science is too complex for us to irrefutably prove that humans are causing global wamring. If people haven't been convinced by the fact of warming (visible to their own eyes and overwhelmingly confirmed), the plausible explanation of how human activity is contributing to it, and the large body of work built up over the years which supports this theory and the fact that the vast majority of global experts on this topic believe the theory is true - what exactly is it that we are waiting for which is going to convince them?
Keep in mind that there is likely a significant overlap between those who don't believe people cause global warming and those who don't believe in evolution.
Waiting for unanimous belief is a recipe for doing nothing ever, and potentially, a recipe for disaster.
By
Anonymous, at 1:26 AM
To clarify, that last comment was by me (in case you couldn't tell by how long winded it was).
By
Declan, at 1:29 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home