Hi all,
Better late than never: happy new year, hopefully with interesting discoveries and experiences.
Today's post is something we have been seeing popping up over the past years: theories on how 'climate change isn't real'. Of course, this plays right in the hands of many sceptics, for whom climate change mitigation policies would be an inconvenience in the least.
I want to discuss the following Guardian opinion article: "Antarctica: record cold and growing ice chills global warming theories." The article argues that due to record cold and the growth of ice in Antarctica, the arguments of extreme heat, ice melt and rising sea level in other parts in the world become redundant. Also, it doubts the value of scientific research, because of its 'contradictory evidence'. "Perhaps, the chill of growing ice and the record cold in Antarctica have caused China to theorize that global warming is a hoax. (...) All of the “proofs” of global warming seem to be embarrassed by the observed data." (Gaul, 2013)
It displays little understanding of science, especially of climate dynamics. The concept of natural variability is one the author disregards entirely. Also, he is one of the many who regards the hiatus as proof against global warming.
Personally, I am scared of these kinds of articles, because they are so conveniently convincing to the non-scientist. Firstly, they lead us into a false sense of security, causing us to believe that if the hiatus continues, we have nothing to worry about. Secondly, they make the public doubt the scientific community. Of course, a healthy dose of critical thinking is what science needs in order to stay truthful. But this article ridicules science with easy-to-believe false reasoning.
I'd like to hear your thoughts on this article in particular, and the many others of its kind, as well as ideas on how to give the public non-opinionated information that is more easily understandable than a journal article.
Hi Larissa, thanks for sharing the article. It's certainly interesting to see how the media interprets short-term trends in climate variables, more often than not without examining the global picture. I share the same sentiment as you topic, especially after having examined the global warming hiatus in more detail in our Climate Dynamics course. I think the best way to ensure the public understand the science is through documents such as those created by the IPCC. Unfortunately the media is not an objective source of information. Perhaps a solution could be for the IPCC to create and make available a document similar to their "Summary for Policymakers" but aimed towards the greater public. I'm not sure how many people would actually read it, but I'm assuming those that are concerned would probably take the time (I know I would). What do you think?
ReplyDeleteCheers,
Katherine
Thanks for your extensive comment Katherine!
ReplyDeleteI agree with you, a summary like that would be wonderful. Also agree with your worry that there might not be much demand for it, but that - as always - also depends on the marketing of it. As we talked about in the climate communication seminar, it's incredibly difficult to bridge the gap between climate research and the media.