Not much has been said about this topic in Australia or around the world so I thought it was time I did a blog entry to raise its profile. It looks like could really be important.
A Facebook friend of mine (John Lord) posted a very interesting status and I thought it worth repeating. John has stated he has little science background, however I think this post is a good read for scientists and non-scientiists alike.
Climate Science ‘A Layperson’s Dilemma’
During the last federal election campaign I tuned onto the ‘7.30
Report’, the night Kerry O’Brien interviewed Tony Abbott about the
coalitions ‘Broadband Policy’. During the interview, Abbott who was
totally out of his depth appealed to O’Brien not to ask questions of a
technological nature because he simply did not understand it. As a
voter, I was appalled that anyone with ambitions to become Prime
Minister should know so little about his own policy. (Mind you, he could
not introduce his party’s economic policy either, but that is another
matter)
What occurred to me on reflection was that if Abbott
knew so little about the science of the internet, how could he have
developed such an insightful knowledge of climate science as to be able
to dismiss it as crap? This in turn prompted me to question my own
comprehension.
I had to admit that although I followed the
debate rigorously and considered myself well informed. I in fact like
many others knew little of the science itself. Frankly, I have enough
trouble with the pop up toaster.
Ask me about literature,
art, political and religious philosophy, music, sport and I can handle
myself adequately but science no. Ask me to explain how an atom is
split, how carbon dating works, how science takes us to space, advances
in medical science, how a mobile phone system works’ D&A, genetics
or electricity is produced then I would be hard pressed to explain. In
fact, I could not and the reader will understand I have only minutely
touched on some branches of science.
So as a layperson,
where does this leave me? Whom do I believe? Well for me it is a no
brainer. I come down on the side of science. In the last few years, I
have under gone a number of operations. I have had a heart attack and
bowel cancer. When confronted with these issues never once (when
consulting with surgeons) did I question the diagnosis I accepted that
scientific research had given my doctors the knowledge to perform
whatever procedure was necessary.
Therefore, it goes that I
cannot explain how many things function or occur. I simply know that
science through reasoned, rational enquiry, evaluation and testing
proves that they do.
For the life of me, I cannot understand
people who accept science in fact and use it every day somehow become
brain dead when it comes to climate science. However, lay people like
me who believe in the existence of climate change cannot honestly claim
to know the veracity of the science for ourselves but are happy to
delegate this task to climate scientists. Laypeople simply do not have
the knowledge to adjudicate on the issue.
On the other hand
the, those who deny the overwhelming scientific consensus seek to
justify their belief by attaching themselves to a minority of science
skeptics with obscure qualifications or worse to right wing shock jocks
and journalists with no scientific training what so ever. These people
(like you and me) have no way of evaluating the volume of data produced
by the various scientific institutions. One of the most outspoken
skeptics (Andrew Bolt) has recently been found guilty of deceptive lying
in that he defamed some white skinned aboriginals. One has to wonder
how many he has told when writing about his favorite topic climate
change.
If I do not support the 95% of scientists, every
major scientific institution and the research that is constantly peer
evaluated I am obliged to accept the alternative. That is that I should
take seriously the likes of Andrew Bolt, (A journalist) Alan Jones, (I’m
not sure how you would describe his contribution to society) Lord
Monckton (A discredited something who was once a lobbyist for the
tobacco companies) Nick Minchin and Tony Abbott. (Both politicians). In
fact, Minchin is on the record as saying that climate change is a left
wing conspiracy to replace communism. None of the aforementioned people
has a background or expertise in climate science.
Now
that’s not to say that they should not have a view and that that view
should not be considered as should any laypersons if they are of that
ilk. But surely, we must respect the science otherwise; you put into
question all science.
As to which way is the best to tackle
the problem in Australia this is more open for the layperson to
investigate. In this country, we have two propositions. One is to tax
the major companies responsible for the pollution with a carbon tax and
use part of the tax to compensate households and business for increased
charges. A market approach would be normally supported by conservative
governments and was liberal policy prior to Tony Abbott being elected
opposition leader.
The other is a direct action policy where
taxpayer’s funds are given (repeat “are given”) to the polluters to
clean up the mess they have created without any guarantees they will do
so. In all my research, this method has no credence among professionals.
Indeed, Abbott has not produced one economist in support of direct
action. Treasury has qualitative evidence to suggest his plan will cost
twice as much as they have committed. It is a shame, indeed sad to see
shadow minister Greg Hunt who wrote his university thesis (with honors)
in support of a carbon tax now trying to defend something he obviously
does not believe.
In conclusion, for me as a layperson it seems
logical to support the evidence the scientists have produced. I think
all the people of this earth and our planet deserve the benefit of any
doubt.
Alternatively, when science discovers a cure for cancer do I just say crap?
This issue is about science communication. Scientists are not, generally, good at it. There are recent exceptions of course: Neil deGrasse Tyson, Brian Cox, Sheldon Cooper and Karl Kruszelnicki come to mind. There are others from the past that impacted me: Julius Sumner Miller and Carl Sagan were early influences.
Even though we are not doing a great job, I found John's summary quite refreshing - when push comes to shove he does trust science, as do most people - but for some reason not in the case of climate change.
