A Conversation on Climate Change

It started off simply. An email from my conservative brother, distraught about cap and trade legislation that had passed the U.S. House. Just another in a long-running policy debate between him and his liberal older sister.

I admitted the legislation was flawed but not final: the Senate had yet to weigh in. And I asked him this question: “Given that this is an even more dire issue for the future of our children and grandchildren than any other, what ideas do you support for curbing greenhouse gases and creating a more sustainable society?”

That’s when for me, the conversation became surreal. Because it turns out my brother – like many other US citizens, mostly of a conservative bent -- doesn’t believe in global warming.

And so began a conversation that ultimately included my friend, Bob Grumbine – a real, live climate scientist I dragged in to counter what I believed to be bad science. I could turn this post into a play-by-play description of that conversation, but that’s not fair to my brother or my friend. Especially when my biggest insight was about my own ignorance.

So I write this as a thank you to my brother, who started the conversation. And to Bob, for clearly explaining the science behind the issues my brother raised, then pointing me to other knowledgeable resources.

Did the data sway my brother? I don’t know. One of Bob’s comments haunts me: “If you can't examine the science without letting fears about your wallet dictate whether you accept the science, you're really not going to understand the science.”  We seem incapable of moving beyond ideology when it comes to the science of climate change.  And general ignorance of science is a big part of the issue.

That would be me. I tuned out all things science long ago, certainly by the time I took high school chemistry. “We’re words people,” my father used to say. As if the ability to communicate effectively doesn’t apply to science or math. But I absorbed this because truthfully, science and math didn’t come as naturally – or interest me – the way language and history did.

So it’s hypocritical of me to point to the ignorance of the doubters when I’m just as ignorant about the science supporting climate change. It doesn’t help that the scientists who know the most write about it in ways that make it inaccessible to the average non-scientist.

There’s increasing discussion among scientists, themselves, about the need for communicating effectively with the general public. Michael Tobis, who blogs at Only In It For The Gold, says, “ I believe that increased alienation between experts and the public during the past generation, notably in America but also elsewhere, is the single greatest threat humanity faces.”  And Randy Olson, scientist, filmmaker and author of Don’t Be Such a Scientist, asks, “How bad is the situation with scientists and their communication skills? Well, I think it’s at a crisis stage.”

I began reading Tobis’s blog at Bob’s suggestion. While I admit I’m completely lost reading some of his posts on climate change science, I appreciate his passion, which often comes across in humorous and irreverent ways. And I felt like he was talking directly to me when he said:

“I believe that the present topic is the keystone issue of the survival of civilization. I believe that the increased alienation between experts and the public during the past generation, notably in America but also elsewhere, is the single greatest threat humanity faces. It subsumes not just climate, but also food security, energy security, health, war and peace, and ultimately the preservation of any human accomplishment worth preserving. If we accept that humanity freely chooses its destiny, we had damned well better improve our competence. “[Italics mine.]

Tobis also pointed me to science teacher Greg Craven, whose YouTube videos led him to write a book, What’s the Worst That Could Happen?  Although Craven clearly comes out in support of the science behind global warming, his book doesn’t try to talk nonbelievers to his side. Instead, he provides a way to do your own risk analysis, offering the supporting arguments for both sides.

I’m still not as knowledgeable as I’d like about the science of climate change. Thanks to Bob and others, though, I can at least explain why we should be concerned by a CO2 level of 385 parts per million (ppm), rising about 2 ppm/year, and why these increases cannot be attributed to normal warming trends.

It’s a start.

Comments

[Barb Didrichsen]

Cialis,

I would point you to my friend Bob Grumbine's blog: http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/ . You'll find plenty there -- both in postings about climate change and links to other climate scientists' blogs or to websites maintained by reputable climate science organizations, such as RealClimate.

You'll also find good information on Michael Tobis's "Only In It For the Gold" blog -- http://initforthegold.blogspot.com/

Good luck on your school project!

Barb

[cialis online]

I write an essay on climate change, picking a side of the debate and arguing in its defense, for school. I want to research both arguments first but I am unable to find an article giving SPECIFIC EVIDENCE that ties human activity to climate change apart from "Scientists now agree that..."

do you know of any such articles? can you post a link?

thanks a bunch

[Middle Way]

For more information on the scientific evidence behind global warming, please visit my blog for links. Like yourself, I am following the Middle Way, but also have a degree in biology.
http://tmakashi.wordpress.com/

[Term papers]

Very useful article i really admired this..!

[Barb Didrichsen]

Kate,

Thanks for posting. I've signed up for RSS feeds for your blog -- thanks for alerting me to it.

Barb D.

[Barb Didrichsen]

Sounds like we have similar challenges! I'm not sure if I'll ever have the math skills to follow the scientists' data. But for those who can extrapolate that data and put it into words I can (strive to) grasp, I'm working to get there!

Barb D.

[John]

Thanks for sharing your story.

We have a few things in common: family split in their beliefs on global warming. Mine is split by politics, which like Bob Grumbine's studying-science-with-your-wallet example, appears to shape their view of climate science. And like you, I knew I didn't know much on the science when I started studying it. Though I understand a lot now, I'm still way out of my league in doing any of the mathematics. My plan is to help my daughter with her math and keep doing so each year till she's studying Calculus. Then I'll have the math background I need. (By the way, I'm here via Bob's blog too.)

jg

[Kate]

Hi there - I found your site via More Grumbine Science.

I think it's great that non-scientists such as yourself are aware of the nature of science, that you know how to assess credibility and discover bias without even studying the issues deeply.

I think you might be interested in my blog - I'm a high school student, and am reading ahead on climate science as much as I can, but most of my posts are about sociology or credibility or risk management. My writing was greatly influenced by Greg Craven, but recently I'm taking a lot of inspiration from Michael Tobis and Coby Beck. Link is probably on my name.

[Bob Grumbine]

A nice note, as usual. I've mentioned you, and this note, over in my blog.

The matter of ignorance is annoying to everyone. We're all ignorant about an enormous amount of what is known to someone knowledgeable in that area. And, given how much is out there, we always will be. One could easily spend a lifetime (or at least a decade) becoming expert about the carbon cycle. And another lifetime on radiative transfer, another on clouds, another on remote sensing, and ... on for quite a long list, even just within climate. While it would be nice for everyone to know everything about everything, that just can't happen.

So we have to make do with something less. I would really like to see more books/blogs/... that were readable by an interested nonprofessional on climate. (Not to mention all the other interesting areas there are in the world!) And, of course, that their scientific content were reasonable. I accept that you can't lay out all the gory details fully. But you don't have to lie either (as a recent publication did in flagrantly misrepresenting the science and people it was quoting).