Global warming/climate change has a reputation problem! 6 months ago critics of climate change were on the defensive: they were seen as crackpots, right-wingers, heads in the sands denying the “science” of climate change. If you denied climate change you were categorised as misinformed and politically misaligned.
In the past 6 months the debate has changed as the quality and accuracy of climate change research has been questioned and exposed. First it was the leaked emails from a university research centre that implied that research was being either massaged or being positioned to advocate climate change. Notwithstanding the interesting timing of the leaks before the Copenhagen Summit and the conspiracy theories that suggested it was Russian hackers operating at the behest of an unnamed state, it exposed the political nature of climate change research. In short, it reminded us that scientists are human. Hopefully, it reminded them of the same.
This weeks exposure of the inadequacy of data surrounding the melting of the Himalayan Glaciers is a more of an issue as it calls into question all the “reported” research into the impact of global warming and suggests that there is a cavalier approach among the scientific community towards the publishing of research as well as a grasping at any evidence that will support the thesis/hypothesis of climate change.
Climate Change scientists have a reputation problem now as more of the media grow increasingly sceptical of the science. In part it is the sanctimonious attitude of scientists who seem impervious to criticism. Their argument that “yes, this is wrong… but there is tons of other evidence” looks increasingly unconvincing. In part the problem lies with the positioning of the science: no, the case is not proven, but then it never is. We have many of the necessary preconditions for climate change but we do not have sufficient evidence to “prove” the thesis. Critics reverse this statement by emphasising the insufficiency of the evidence. 10 years ago we talked about human impact upon our environment. The debate then focused on climate change and temperature variation and the likely impact of these changes.
Scientists need to revert to a more general question of the impact of human society on our environment and how to manage this. Discussions of the impact of carbon on ocean acidification, deforestation and the use of resources seem more salient compared to measuring the ozone hole whose implications remain uncertain. The scientific community should investigate the ideologisation of climate change research and clarify the remit and potential of science to inform debate. In those terms, science should not drive the debate.
Related posts:
- Global Environment Issue’s Reputation and the Climategate! That the earth is going through alarming changes is obvious,...
- Pharmaceutical Companies and Bird Flu Certain allegations really hurt. The EU’s accusation that pharmaceutical companies...
Drip, Drip… Global Warming’s Water Torture Reputation Problem
Global warming/climate change has a reputation problem! 6 months ago critics of climate change were on the defensive: they were seen as crackpots, right-wingers, heads in the sands denying the “science” of climate change. If you denied climate change you were categorised as misinformed and politically misaligned.
In the past 6 months the debate has changed as the quality and accuracy of climate change research has been questioned and exposed. First it was the leaked emails from a university research centre that implied that research was being either massaged or being positioned to advocate climate change. Notwithstanding the interesting timing of the leaks before the Copenhagen Summit and the conspiracy theories that suggested it was Russian hackers operating at the behest of an unnamed state, it exposed the political nature of climate change research. In short, it reminded us that scientists are human. Hopefully, it reminded them of the same.
This weeks exposure of the inadequacy of data surrounding the melting of the Himalayan Glaciers is a more of an issue as it calls into question all the “reported” research into the impact of global warming and suggests that there is a cavalier approach among the scientific community towards the publishing of research as well as a grasping at any evidence that will support the thesis/hypothesis of climate change.
Climate Change scientists have a reputation problem now as more of the media grow increasingly sceptical of the science. In part it is the sanctimonious attitude of scientists who seem impervious to criticism. Their argument that “yes, this is wrong… but there is tons of other evidence” looks increasingly unconvincing. In part the problem lies with the positioning of the science: no, the case is not proven, but then it never is. We have many of the necessary preconditions for climate change but we do not have sufficient evidence to “prove” the thesis. Critics reverse this statement by emphasising the insufficiency of the evidence. 10 years ago we talked about human impact upon our environment. The debate then focused on climate change and temperature variation and the likely impact of these changes.
Scientists need to revert to a more general question of the impact of human society on our environment and how to manage this. Discussions of the impact of carbon on ocean acidification, deforestation and the use of resources seem more salient compared to measuring the ozone hole whose implications remain uncertain. The scientific community should investigate the ideologisation of climate change research and clarify the remit and potential of science to inform debate. In those terms, science should not drive the debate.
Related posts: