George
The point you are raising here - to me it is called the "white coat
syndrome" [WCS] - is a key part of our dilemma with climate change and
how to behave, confronted with its very difficult implications. Taking
the consequences of [responsibilities for?] one's insights is often
painful. Failing to is as well. Thinking of a few people I can remember
over the last twenty years, this - the WCS - is a false refuge in which
much 'scientific hypocrisy' is nurtured. It is something more complex
and potentially worse than denial; is it perhaps an undeclared fatalism?
Since I read your comments as an encouragement to people [white coats
especially perhaps] to take the former course and so to take
responsibilityn for their insights, would you please suggest in a reply
what this practically entails? For example it seems that James Lovelock
does take the consequences of his insight. But since he links his
prognosis ["Gaia's Revenge"] to the 'need' nuclear for power, reactions
to his position centre almost entirely [and to me somewhat inanely] on
whether nuclear power is a good thing or not.
So specifically, my question to you is this: - if [as an example] you
agreed with JL about the degree of jeopoardy in which climate change
puts us all and if [assuming you don't join in his enthsiasm for nuclear
power] you were to offer advice on what needs to be done without
resorting to nuclear to break out of WCS, what would your advice be?
Regards
Aubrey
George Marshall wrote:
> Dear friends,
>
> I have just posted this article to by blog website
> www.climatedenial.org <http://www.climatedenial.org>
> I would love to hear your comments, so please also add them to the
> site and share this round. I would very much like to start a debate.
>
> Yours
>
> George Marshall
>
>
> DO SCIENTISTS REALLY BELIEVE IN CLIMATE CHANGE?
> <http://climatedenial.org/2006/08/22/do-scientists-really-believe-in-climate-change/>
>
>
> This is not a facetious question or skeptic propaganda. I would never
> argue that the scientific community agrees that climate change is
> real, human induced, and dangerous.
>
> However, ‘believe’ is a powerful and specific word. When we talk of
> the things we ‘believe’ in we give them a value and an emotional
> context. We /know /many things, but it is our beliefs that provide a
> frame for our decisions and direct our behaviour.
>
> So, to come back to the question- do scientists /really /believe in
> climate change? My observation is that many do not. In the course of
> my work (I am a director of a climate change charity) I often attend
> scientific briefings and have met many professional climate scientists
> and have noted the following consistent traits of scientific
> presentations:
>
> *It’s serious, but don’t panic*. Gavin Schmidt has written a long
> review for the excellent Real Climate site on the IPPR report I
> reviewed in the last posting
> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=334. Schmidt argues that the
> IPPR authors missed a “huge missing category” of denial, the ‘it’s
> serious (and interesting) but don’t panic’ repertoire which, he says,
> ‘is the language most often heard at scientific conferences’.
>
> Schmidt cites as an example a letter to the Independent from Dr Thomas
> Crowley from the Division of Earth and Ocean Sciences at Duke
> University, North Carolina. Dr Crowley calls on environmentalists to
> stop ‘castigating others and raising wild alarms’ and ’sit down at the
> negotiating table with industry and conservative politicians and do
> some good old-fashioned “horse trading”.
>
> *The role for scientists is informing the debate. *Back in 2000 my
> friend and colleague Mark Lynas asked a simple but highly relevant
> question at a public meeting addressed by Professor Mike Hulme, the
> head of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Research. “If, as you have
> argued, the Amazon may burn down adding a further 3 degrees to global
> climate, that’s curtains for all of us, isn’t it?” This is exactly the
> kind of question one is never supposed to ask, and Hulme responded
> energetically to deflate it. “I do not think it is appropriate or
> useful for us to bang our drum about this- we need to use this
> information to generate a dialogue about our future options”. He
> didn’t answer the question because, dialogue or no dialogue, Mark was
> right. It is curtains, and scientists are remarkably unwilling to ever
> say this even when the conclusion could be solidly supported by their
> own data.
>
> *Reluctance to draw out actual human impacts. *I recently attended a
> public presentation by a leading scientist about sea level rise. He
> was a good speaker and became extremely exercised about the variables-
> the differences between models and the uncertainties concerning the
> collapse of the Greenland ice sheet. But he was not prepared to talk
> at all about what these sea level rises actually mean- the loss of
> most of Bangladesh, Egypt, Florida, the Netherlands and most major
> cities- or any of the social and political schisms that would result
> from these impacts. His emotional engagement was with the model. I
> find this abstraction of the issue is extremely common in scientific
> presentations.
>
> *There are many uncertainties. *How many times have I heard scientists
> say this? Scientists are quite right to be very wary of drawing firm
> conclusions from uncertain models. However, even as those models have
> become more and more reliable, and the actual evidence of climate
> change has become ever stronger, scientists continue to undermine
> their work by their abiding reluctance to speak with confidence. This
> has been a gift to professional contrarians who denounce the facts on
> the media with absolute and persuasive certainty.
>
> *I am not qualified to comment. *A friend of mine- a social scientist
> by training- was working in the offices of the British Antarctic
> Survey and noticed that scientists made no attempt to put together
> their different and very specialised areas of research to form a
> single picture. She believes that this is a deliberate psychological
> strategy. By looking at only one small part of the problem, scientists
> can avoid facing the overall catastrophic conclusions and can hide
> behind their specialism.
>
> I believe that many scientists adopt elaborate denial strategies to
> protect themselves from the extreme seriousness of climate change.
> They intellectualise the issue and deliberately avoid facing its
> implications. They define emotional engagement as ‘political’ and
> irresponsible and castigate those, fellow scientists included, who
> express fear or despair, or seek to communicate the real urgency to
> the general public.
>
> Finally, scientists are prone to leave climate change at work and live
> like everyone else the rest of the time. Whenever I have the chance I
> ask climate scientists if they still fly for their holidays. Most are
> surprised that I even ask the question. One admitted to me in the pub
> after a heated public meeting that he flies three times a year to the
> Alps and even south America for skiing holidays. He said that his job
> was very hard and stressful and that he needs the break.
>
> In anticipation of the potential response of scientists I want to say
> this. Climate change is no ordinary problem. Your own work makes it
> abundantly clear that it threatens our survival. Under the
> circumstances it is vital that you clearly and honestly communicate
> the threat- indeed it is ethically irresponsible for you not to do so.
> It is entirely appropriate for you to express concern, anger and fear
> to your colleagues and the general public.
>
> And to those scientists who are already doing this- I take off my hat
> to you. We desperately need your knowledge and guidance.
>
> Please add your comments on www.climatedenial.org
> <http://www.climatedenial.org>
>
> --
> George Marshall,
> Executive Director,
> Climate Outreach Information Network, 16B Cherwell St.,
> Oxford OX4 1BG
> UK
> Office Tel. 01865 727 911
> Mobile 0795 150 4549 (I will call you back to save you the high charge
> of calling mobiles) E-mail: [log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> Website: http://www.COINet.org.uk
>
> The Climate Outreach Information Network is a charitable trust with
> the objective of 'advancing the education of the public in the subject
> of climate change and its impact on local, national, and global
> environments'. Charity registration number 1102225
>
> Please join our mailing lists.
> Announcements of climate change events by all organisations send a
> blank e-mail to:
> [log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]> or
> [log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>
> COIN newsletter and updates send a blank e-mail to:
> [log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>
>
>
|
