With Hurricane Irene focusing some attention on climate change (at the New York Times website anyway), the post below looks at some of the issues surrounding communication of climate science.
A series has just kicked off at The Conversation that promises to “shine an inquisitive light onto specific instances of misrepresentation, distortion, or spin by the Australian media as they relate to climate change”.
In the first article in the series, Professor Stephan Lewandowsky, of the Cognitive Science Laboratories at the University of Western Australia, says the the Australian media have failed the public by creating a phoney debate about climate science that is largely absent from the peer-reviewed literature, where real scientific debates take place.
But perhaps the scientific community and others also need to be choosing their words more carefully, suggests Dr David King, a general practitioner and board member of Doctors for the Environment Australia.
He explains below why he doesn’t “believe” in climate change. (At the bottom of the post, you will find a series of links to some interesting climate change resources).
***
Climate change is about science – not belief
David King writes:
I don’t believe in climate change. However, I am convinced by the evidence that supports the theory of human induced climate change.
You may think this is pedantic, but the choice of words does matter. Words carry meaning, value and shared understanding, even when we are not aware of the ‘subtext’.
Critics of climate change understand this well. Or at least they use the opportunity that our choice of words provide. When we state that we believe in climate change, they can label this belief as ‘the new religion.
Yet climate change concerns arose from the scientific process, not from politics, economics or even environmentalism. In the scientific process there is little room for belief, the dispassionate scientist should be an objective observer and be willing to discard a theory not supported by the evidence. The reality is that no one can be entirely objective, so here is the role for true scepticism.
Climate change critics have misappropriated the word sceptic, but act like deniers rather than sceptics. They start with a set of beliefs, then selectively choose, distort or fabricate facts to support their starting point. They start with a set of beliefs such as economic growth is unlimited, that humans are outside and above the natural order, and that humans couldn’t possibly affect the climate. These are not testable scientific hypotheses.
The rise of ‘anti-scientism’ is most visible currently in the climate change arena, but is a generally worrying trend for health care as well.
When our media presents science as belief, then we can be as authoritative as any expert in any field. It is therefore easier to believe that vaccinations may be a conspiracy to weaken our immune systems for a corporate profit. It encourages us to take an individualistic approach to scientific information, and makes legislation for public versus individual good more difficult. It encourages conspiracy theories. It even encourages threats against scientists if they discover inconvenient truths.
Starting with belief rather than scientific evidence also encourages the use of pejorative terms.
Are scientists who warn about the dangers of a rapidly changing climate “alarmists”?
It is the evidence that is alarming, not the starting intent of those studying and applying climate science. We don’t hear doctors being labelled as alarmists for warning about the obesity and diabetes ‘epidemic’.
So now when I’m asked whether I believe in climate change, I make a point of saying no, it is not about belief but about consideration of the evidence. The evidence regarding climate change is more certain than in most cases of clinical medicine, where action is decided on the balance of risk and benefit.
The diagnosis is relatively easy – developing a suitable response is the challenging part.
Here the scientific process is less able to assist us. So I have to rely on extrapolating from other experiences in life. Some people don’t stop smoking until they have a heart attack, for some until it is too late.
Now I can talk about belief – I don’t believe that our current political and social structures will provide the necessary leadership to prevent more severe climate change. I hope that I am proved wrong.
***
Climate change communications
Some of the climate change sites that got a mention at the Banff science communications course that I’ve been attending for the past 15-days in Canada:
Skeptical Science not only counters climate change misinformation, but has an app.
Climate Debate Daily which aims to “provide a new way to understand disputes about global warming”, lists the opposing arguments under “calls to action” and “dissenting voices”, and also links to many other sites.
A somewhat more sophisticated analysis of the challenges in communicating climate science is provided at Understanding and Solving the Climate Change Problem, an initiative that aims to continue the work of the late Stanford University scientist Professor Stephen Schneider.
Meanwhile, one other thing I learnt at Banff is – never under-estimate the power of entertainment and humour as a means of communication.
On that note…
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFTddFk6zb8[/youtube]
Climate change is not about belief. But any change in behaviour is very much about beliefs. Arguing the facts is important, but it assumes people rationally base their actions on facts. I spend some time trying to think of ways to make people less fat, less likely to smoke and generally less self destructive. The evidence in those areas isn’t even seriously contested by vested interests any more, and yet people still smoke.
When does it get to the point where one can say one does not “believe”, but one actually knows?
Completely agree with this. Here are the facts… you choose how to respond to them. Hopefully you will recognise that this is serious.
Those who label the scientists as alarmists are those who fear the public response to the facts and make every attempt to confuse the public.
Yet another attempt to simplify the climate change debate and reduce it to a “it is real” versus “it is not real” discussion. The debate is far more complex than this.
For a start, there are many types of denialists, ie:
I do not believe the world is warming
I believe the world is warming but it is a natural phenomena
I believe the world is warming, and it is caused by human activity but I do not believe there is anything we can do to halt the process
I believe the world is warming etc but do not agree with the proposals being tabled to address the problem.
and there are many more variations
All people holding any of the views listed above are labelled denialists yet the arguments involved are significantly different for each view.
I personally feel that I do not need to decide on whether the science is right because I do not agree with the proposed actions for change.
I am also uncomfortable with the arrogance of the human race in that we claim to have caused the warming but now believe we are smart enough to fix the problem by agreeing an optimal temperature setting for the planet. If you believe that climate change is a problem then it follows that you wish to stop the change and by implication this means that you have an optimal temperature setting in mind for the planet.
Talk about playing god!!!
@yaybucky
So by your reasoning, you would also refuse to act on deforestation, overfishing, industrial air pollution of stratospheric ozone depletion. These are all examples where human actions have had regional or global consequences. And by your reasoning, to take action is “playing God”.
You really need to have a think about your logic.
Mr Crisp – another attempt to simplify what is a complex debate.
The key difference between climate change and the other human negatives that you have listed is the degree of uncertainty.
We can clearly see the affects of deforestation and overfishing, these impacts are easily measured and the action plans for rectification quite clear. If we are overfishing we fish less. If we are clearing too much forest we clear less.
If the proposal for reducing deforestation and overfishing was to cut off the right arm of every fisherman and forest worker then I would resist this change and by the logic of todays climate change debate I would be considered a deforestation / overfishing denialist.
In relative terms these other environmental issues are straight forward debates involving probably two key issues, ie is overfishing occurring and what is the best way to overcome over fishing. The climate change debate is significantly more complex with significantly more questions to be asked and debated.
Is climate change happening? Is it the change simply part of the natural cycle? Is climate change (warming) actually harmful or potentially beneficial? Is climate change caused by man? Can we actually do anything meaningful to arrest climate change? Is it more economically beneficial to adapt to climate change? Has the climate change issue been hijacked by governments to push other taxation agendas?
Of course when we make the decision to actively manage any component of nature we are playing god. I think this can be justified where there is clear evidence that harm is being done to the environment or to the human race and where we are confident that our rectification plan is sound and is the most economically viable when all key factors are taken into consideration.
In the context of climate change the proof for harm is debateable, the rectification plan is a joke and the economic impact is potentially catastrophic.
Our knowledge of climate to be frank is miniscual and to take major action based on the little that we do know is simply irresponsible – it is akin to releasing cane toads into the Australian cane fields.
My last post would be better ended with the statement “Talk about playing uninformed, arrogant, delusional God” but I suppose these attributes are more human than godly which is why we can only “play” at the climate change game.