Uncertainties are rife in climate science.
An article in The Economist this week brought me hope that serious people are still serious about Climate Change. After the Copenhagen conference this article put into context for me why science could not give the politicians what they needed and indeed why it fed the sceptics’ case.
Apparently Politicians work like the press. They simplify a situation for us then exaggerate the points that they have made to gain emotional support through shock and awe. So when real scientists ask genuine questions and correctly disagree with one another they fail to provide the sound-bite and the concrete evidence that under-girds the words of our wise spokespeople.
I honestly believe that many of the politicians ardently feel the need to act on Climate Change, yet without the hard evidence that we, the public, demand, and especially in the face of recession and disaster, have their hands tied. Their economic and ultimately political self-interest remain beyond what many would consider common sense.
Is it too late to save the world? Mr Brown’s comments about the nature of Copenhagen are long gone. And it may appear that the public interest has waned too. So perhaps it is.
But if we are to move forward in anything it seems we as people need to become more comfortable with embracing uncertainty. We spend too long couching the comfort we gain from the black and white we call facts. And yet we are adjusting to the possibility , the likelihood that uncertainty exists. No more do we expect a job for life. We are no longer surprised when our favourite brand of tea is re-packaged and has a new-improved flavour. We have accepted it.
Yet the question remains over who benefits from the uncertainty. In business it is not the employees. In politics it is not the voter.
But when it comes to science we all benefit from the uncertainty because it gives us a range of possible outcomes. In climate science we have possibilities from warmer summers to global catastrophe. The benefit for us is the middle ground of reason. If one extreme is wrong then we can be comforted that the other may be too. The middle ground creates a picture that can activate a sensible and reasoned response with urgency but without hysteria. That to me seems a good thing.
But instead it looks like we throw babies out alongside their bathwater. We’ve been duped by the scientists, duped by the politician and duped by the press. Or so we believe.
Yet we continue to buy the latest scientific diet? The last one didn’t work so the next one will? Of course. But that is not uncertainty it is incremental improvement. Can we not give the science that studies critical elements of our life that room?
Uncertainty is rife but it suggests a risk exists – and a risk of such considerable consequences that we need to demand a reaction!
Posted on March 22, 2010
Filed Under environment issues | Leave a Comment
Comments
Leave a Reply