Climate Change Gossip
Joe Weitz
Like religion, politics, and baseball, climate change is one of those topics that divides people and causes some of the most passionate debates. Each side of the issues facing climate change has their own valid opinions and facts, but among the scientific community, it is widely accepted that climate change is a reality. So why is there still so much controversy and political resistance surrounding climate change if the leading scientists in the world and the general public acknowledge the reality we face? According to an editorial in Nature, a weekly science journal, entitled “A Question of Trust”, the scientific community itself maybe partly responsible for the remaining percentage of public mistrust and the lack of real political action.
Multiple scandals involving falsified data and leaked emails have made a significant minority of the public weary of scientist’s efforts, despite the over whelming concrete evidence that is available. The editorial states that it isn’t that general public that scientists are now trying to inform, in fact the majority of people accept climate change as a reality, but instead our governments that need convincing. Scientific mistakes aside, the evidence for climate change is overwhelming. So the question remains, with this general public acceptance of climate change, why have our governments not readily adopted policies to combat a warming climate? According to the author of “A Question of Trust”, politicians, like people, have many vested interests that are contrary to some potential environmental policies. Upcoming reelections, public opinion, and monetary incentives, among other factors, are all being put ahead of this potential crisis by many politicians.
The author of “A Question of Trust” states that in order for any real action to take place, scientists must be more careful about falsified data and be more open with the public when it comes to the uncertainties of climate change. Instead of playing them down, scientists should inform the community on the known facts, but also be open about what the honestly don’t know. Many skeptics view scientists as a different species in a way, a highbrow class with their own agendas. This alienates a very significant percentage of people, especially Americans. By stating the known facts and expressing their own uncertainties scientists will come across as more human, allowing more of the public, and eventually politicians, to identify with them.
In Zeeya Merali’s editorial, “UK Climate Data were not Tampered With,” it is stated that the scientists who were blamed for falsifying statistical evidence, actual did not. Thousands of emails were hacked from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, UK, and because they were never encrypted and never made public it was assumed that they possessed falsified data. A team led by Muir Russell, the former vice-chancellor of the University of Glasgow, UK, was given the task of investigating the scientist’s actions. A 160-page report stated that the team found “no evidence of malicious intent, but rather a ‘consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness’ both among researchers and in the university's leadership in handling the affair.”
Falsified data or not, the reality is not enough is being done about climate change and all of the surrounding controversy, most of which can be avoided simply through more easily accessible data and research, is only slowing down any real progress. Being honest with the public and gaining their trust is the only way to convince our governments that we need to prepare for climate change.
Joe Weitz
Like religion, politics, and baseball, climate change is one of those topics that divides people and causes some of the most passionate debates. Each side of the issues facing climate change has their own valid opinions and facts, but among the scientific community, it is widely accepted that climate change is a reality. So why is there still so much controversy and political resistance surrounding climate change if the leading scientists in the world and the general public acknowledge the reality we face? According to an editorial in Nature, a weekly science journal, entitled “A Question of Trust”, the scientific community itself maybe partly responsible for the remaining percentage of public mistrust and the lack of real political action.
Multiple scandals involving falsified data and leaked emails have made a significant minority of the public weary of scientist’s efforts, despite the over whelming concrete evidence that is available. The editorial states that it isn’t that general public that scientists are now trying to inform, in fact the majority of people accept climate change as a reality, but instead our governments that need convincing. Scientific mistakes aside, the evidence for climate change is overwhelming. So the question remains, with this general public acceptance of climate change, why have our governments not readily adopted policies to combat a warming climate? According to the author of “A Question of Trust”, politicians, like people, have many vested interests that are contrary to some potential environmental policies. Upcoming reelections, public opinion, and monetary incentives, among other factors, are all being put ahead of this potential crisis by many politicians.
The author of “A Question of Trust” states that in order for any real action to take place, scientists must be more careful about falsified data and be more open with the public when it comes to the uncertainties of climate change. Instead of playing them down, scientists should inform the community on the known facts, but also be open about what the honestly don’t know. Many skeptics view scientists as a different species in a way, a highbrow class with their own agendas. This alienates a very significant percentage of people, especially Americans. By stating the known facts and expressing their own uncertainties scientists will come across as more human, allowing more of the public, and eventually politicians, to identify with them.
In Zeeya Merali’s editorial, “UK Climate Data were not Tampered With,” it is stated that the scientists who were blamed for falsifying statistical evidence, actual did not. Thousands of emails were hacked from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, UK, and because they were never encrypted and never made public it was assumed that they possessed falsified data. A team led by Muir Russell, the former vice-chancellor of the University of Glasgow, UK, was given the task of investigating the scientist’s actions. A 160-page report stated that the team found “no evidence of malicious intent, but rather a ‘consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness’ both among researchers and in the university's leadership in handling the affair.”
Falsified data or not, the reality is not enough is being done about climate change and all of the surrounding controversy, most of which can be avoided simply through more easily accessible data and research, is only slowing down any real progress. Being honest with the public and gaining their trust is the only way to convince our governments that we need to prepare for climate change.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v466/n7302/full/466007a.html
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100707/full/news.2010.335.html
No comments:
Post a Comment